I am really concerned that the
new discard ban could do a lot of harm to the positive developments that we
have seen over the last decade with the decline in fishing mortality, with the
RACs as platforms of collaboration and with initiatives like the Scottish
conservation credit scheme. The discard ban is a very complex piece of
legislation that is very very difficult to explain. There have been many
meetings already trying to figure out what the different elements mean. Taking
the discard ban as a learning process, then it could develop in something
positive. But if it would be rolled out as a control and enforcement approach,
I am really concerned that it will do much more harm than good.

Overall the challenge that I
see is to go from a very hierarchical top-down micromanagement style of
fisheries management to a management style that is more comparable to other
industries: where society gives out a license to produce but the industry needs
to demonstrate that it complies with the license. Making the industry
responsible to society instead of society telling the industry what to do. That
is also why I have taken the strategic decision to be part of the industry and
trying to work in that direction

The full Gap 2 Article from
which this is an extract can be found here

The Commissioner, Maria
Damanaki, is already on record as saying that the vote means that Europe cannot
“continue business as usual.” The Commissioner and the Commission more
generally, must take their share of responsibility for the alienation felt by
ordinary people to the extent that they have stayed away from the polling
booths in droves, or voted for avowedly anti-EU parties.

Fishing has a visibility in the
public mind beyond its size, and the failures of the CFP have been a not-unimportant
part of the public perception of an unaccountable Commission and out-of-touch
Parliament overseeing blunt, frequently ineffective, and sometimes brutal policies.
It is not an insult to say that the
Commission and MEPs are too ignorant to be allowed to manage European
fisheries. It is merely a description of the reality that a small-group of Brussels-based
bureaucrats and politicians, whatever their qualifications and personal attributes,
cannot possibly hold the detailed knowledge necessary to effectively manage the
wide range of complex and diverse range of fisheries found in EU waters. The
recent reform of the CFP both recognised and denied this important fact. The
scope for member states, cooperating regionally, to play a significant role in
policy formation in fisheries will hopefully mark the beginning of what will
turn out to be a radical decentralisation of fisheries decision-making. But the
EU discard ban (aka landings obligation) carries sufficient hallmarks of the
old regime to cause problems in design and implementation. The Commission’s subsequent
proposal to apply a blanket ban drift nets that would, if adopted, extinguish a
range of sustainable small-scale fisheries, suggests that the Commission’s top-down
instincts are not dead, at least up to last week’s vote.

They may however be killed
off by the voice of the people. According to the BBC, the vote last week is
likely to result in a rebalancing of responsibilities between Europe and the
member state, less regulation, and a refocus onto economic growth and jobs.

If this turns out to be true,
it would have to have concrete expression in fisheries, through:

· The withdrawal of
the proposal to ban drift nets

· Visible and
active support for regionalisation

· A departure from superficial,
media-focused legislation, when less grandiose but more soundly-based
approaches are available

· A genuine
determination to remove layers of unnecessary and counterproductive
legislation. First on the list should be the removal of effort control (days at
see restrictions)

This would be a good start in
rolling back the intrusive and and frankly ineffective parts of the Common
Fisheries Policy in line with the new democratic
realities.

Steve Perham is the last of a line of herring fishermen stretching back 1,000 years. He fishes under sail and oar out of a 15ft boat from the port of Clovelly in north Devon. There are four boats now, three of them using motors. Once there were dozens setting their drift nets for the shoals of spawning herring that crowd into the bay between Michaelmas and Christmas.

The Covelly herring fishery is probably the most ecological sustainable fishing operation in Britain, one of the smallest of many artisan fisheries round the coast for mullet, bass, sole and, more controversially, salmon and sea trout. With the last two, anglers contend they should get more of the catch, but no one disputes the fishing is well managed. The herring was badly managed up to the 1970s, in the day of Perham’s father, when the entire European herring fishery was closed because of overfishing by industrial boats.

The herring came back and fishing fully reopened in 1984 but buyers had lost their taste for the “silver darling”. Perham now sells mostly to pensioners who remember how to cook the oily fish that are about the healthiest meal you can get.

Herring are delicious soused in mild vinegar or flattened and fried the Scottish way in pinhead oatmeal. But few remember. Our charity was discussing how to help to market the Clovelly herring because it is caught within the north Devon biosphere reserve, which includes the marine nature reserve of Lundy. It illustrates perfectly how conservationists and fishermen can share objectives.

Then, just over a week ago, came the bombshell. Perham said the European Commission was proposing a ban on all drift net fisheries. Yes, that would include the Clovelly fishery, which catches no more than 10tons of herring a year, and the Thames Blackwater fishery, the first one to be given an eco-label by the Marine Stewardship Council. I couldn’t believe that what was proposed was an unqualified ban a proposal that affects the livelihoods of 250 vessels, or 4.5% of the British fleet. Then I found it was true. What was the justification for the ban, proposed from January 1 next year? The commission says it is stop the Incidental by-catch of endangered species, marine mammals, sea turtles and sea birds.

We have heard about “walls of death” nets used to catch swordfish and tuna in the Mediterranean and the Pacific a few years ago. Nets more than 1 1/2 miles long were banned by the UN in the early 1990s because of the by catch of whales, dolphins, turtles and sharks. It is well known that fishermen in Italy and France continued to use illegal drifts nets while sometimes claiming subsidies for phasing them out. That is all rather a long way from Clovelly.

Perham fishes 16 separate lengths of net 35 yards long. He says the seals wait until he shoots his nets and then come and skillfully pick out the trapped herring, to his frustration. They are far too practised at this to be caught themselves. his colleague John Ball says the only by-catch is the occasional mackerel and whiting.

The fact that the Clovelly-fishermen stay with their nets is likely to scare off any seal or ultra-shy porpoise long before it could get entangled. Not so, rapid pair – trawling (which uses tow vessels) for bass with fast industrial boats or untended bottom – set gillnets both of which have been blamed for killing porpoises and dolphins.

That was the view of the British fishing and conservation organisations I spoke to. The fishermen described these small fisheries as the “stone in the arch” of fishermen’s livelihoods. Sidney Holt , the doyen of fisheries’ scientists who is also revered by conservationists for his work on saving the whale, furnished an explosive quote. Holt described the Brussels proposal as “completely mad”. All fishing gear had unintended catches, he said, the problem was how to avoid them: “Flat bans of broad types of widely used gear – that’s crazy, misguided and possibly malicious.” The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs voiced “concerns”.

The irony is that this ridiculous policy has been unleashed upon Europe’s most ecologically friendly fishermen by the great Maria Damanaki, the outgoing Greek fisheries commissioner, whose determination let to a necessary and radical reform of Europe’s fisheries policies. What was she thinking? My theory is that things look very different from the Mediterranean where drift nets kill endangered dolphins and monk seals and 90% of fish stocks are overexploited. A drift-net ban might make sense there but not in the rest of Europe. Maybe she thought there was a case for big departing gesture that would necessarily be modified by ministers and the European parliament.

I disagree. This will be a massive distraction from the vital but difficult task she has already set in motion of banning the discarding of perfectly good fish. This is like invading Iraq as well as Afghanistan. I implore Damanki, whom I admire hugely, to drop this misconceived general ban now before it undermines her legacy and instead to target legal proceedings against the countries – France and Italy – that have turned a blind eye to illegal fishing.

Charles Clover

EU ban snares fishermen

A European Union ban on drift netting, designed to save millions of seabirds, turtles and dolphins from Mediterranean Industrial fishing vessels, will wipe out of some of Britain’s most sustainable fisheries, expert warn.

Maria Damanaki, the EU fisheries commissioner, wants a complete ban from January 1, 2015. Large drift nets – known as “curtains of death” because they hang in the water – kill anything that gets tangled in them, including seals, dolphins and birds. Britain has 250 vessels that use small drift nets to catch herring, mackerel, bass and mullet, and have an insignificant by-catch. But the EU proposal is so tightly drawn that they would also be outlawed.

Steve Perham, the last British fisherman to set drift nets using sail and oar, said: “If such fishing has been going 1,000 years it must be fairly sustainable.”

Damanaki said: “Drift nets destroy marine wildlife and threaten sustainable fisheries. I am convinced that the only way to eradicate this once and for all is to have clear rules which leave no room for interpretation.”

Jonathan Leake

Blanket Ban

The main driver for the Commission’s proposal for a blanket ban on drift-net fisheries appears to be the failure of Italy and perhaps other EU States in the Mediterranean, to enforce existing legislation prohibiting the use of drift nets for specific species like swordfish. Drift nets in some fisheries have high levels of bycatch of turtles, and cetaceans. Other drift net fisheries have insignificant levels of bycatch.

The
blanket ban, proposed by the Commission, if adopted, would close all of the UK
small scale drift-net fisheries for herring, mackerel, sole, bass, salmon, sardine
and mullet, some of which are certificated by
the Marine Stewardship Council. None of these fisheries has a significant unwanted
bycatch problem.

This video (also below) provides an insight into one of these well-managed,
small-scale, inshore fisheries.

An
Alternative: Infraction Procedures

When
the UK in the past has failed to implement EU legislation, the Commission has
not been slow to instigate infraction procedures against the UK Government. We
are at a loss therefore, to understand why the Commission is now reaching for
additional legislation to address a specific problem in the Mediterranean, before
it has exhausted the legal means available to it through infraction proceedings;
especially when it is quite clear that this course will extinguish legitimate
and sustainable small-scale fisheries in a number of member states. The maximum financial penalties are not minor
– up to £256,000 per year for each area of non-compliance.

Addressing
problems with enforcement of the existing legislation by prohibiting our relatively
benign fisheries would be high-handed in the extreme. As there is no suggestion of a significant
problem of incidental bycatch in our drift net fisheries,
this legislation if pushed through co-decision could fairly be described as
inappropriate, disproportionate, and in the final analysis, irrational. It is clearly easier for bureaucrats to reach for a
pen to create new legislation than it is to ensure effective implementation of
existing legislation. But that does not mean that the proposed ban is in any
sense justifiable. It is certainly irresponsible.

We
have written elsewhere why moving away from this
kind of blanket, one-size-fits-all, approach was one of the main strands in the
recent CFP reform, yet here we are again having to fight off exactly the kind
of legislation that has in the past delivered little, caused massive collateral
damage, created perverse incentives; and generally earned the Common
Fisheries Policy an appalling reputation for being ineffectual.

FisheriesScientists express Alarm

We are not alone in expressing our anxiety about
the Commission’s bulldozer approach. One of the most
highly regarded fisheries scientists in the world with long experience working
with the FAO in Rome and credited with saving the great whales in the
1960s and 70s comments:

“I, too, was amazed and distressed to read notice
of the completely mad EC proposal to ban all drift-nets. What in heaven’s name
is going on in Brussels?! Yes, there are some unintended catches just as
with ALL fishing gears. The problem is to see how to avoid those as far as
practicable; as with damage to the sea bed by trawls. But flat bans of broad
types of widely used gears – that’s crazy, misguided and possibly malicious.” Sidney Holt

Seasonality
and Inshore Fishing

In
its, characteristically superficial impact assessment, the Commission comments
that drift nets are usually only used at certain parts of the year and that
fishermen have the option of targeting other species or of using
alternative gears.

In
this Commission misunderstands that inshore small scale fishing, is generally
about adapting to the seasons and targeting species that are available within
the limited range of small vessels, using gear that is appropriate. Annual
income is therefore derived therefore from a range of different activities. It
is like a stone arch; if a single stone is extracted the whole edifice falls.
That is why it is important for us to defend these individual small scale drift
net fisheries. The knock on effects of the ban would be widely felt as vessels
displaced from these sustainable fisheries try to survive in other perhaps more
pressurised fisheries. Here is the law of unintended consequences often seen in
play in fisheries management.

What Now?

Although
the Commission says that it launched a “web based consultation” on the proposed
ban, very few people seem to have heard about it. Certainly the advisory
councils have not had an opportunity to express an opinion. This in itself is a
failure of good governance, in a matter of profound significance for a large
number of small-scale fisheries.

It
is important therefore that all those potentially affected by this blanket
approach push back against it. Already, a broad alliance of fishermen,
fishermen’s organisation, conservationists and scientists are signalling that
the Commission has taken a wrong turning. We can expect some powerful member
states to resist this debased version of the precautionary approach. Some
fishing gears in some circumstances do pose an unacceptable threat to wildlife
and it is vital that bycatch problems in those fisheries are resolved. But to
revert to a discredited blanket ban approach, with all the incidental
collateral damage that will cause suggests that there is something far wrong in
the Commission’s thinking as it limps to the end of this Commissioner’s period
of tenure.

Selsey based small boat fisherman Tony Delahunty has been appointed Chairman
of the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations (NFFO) after being
unanimously elected by the federation’s executive committee. Tony took up the
position at the NFFO’s recent AGM and succeeds Cornish representative Paul
Trebilcock, who has held the position since 2012 and will now adopt the role of
President.

Tony operates an under-10 metre vessel targeting both shellfish and
whitefish from Selsey and also holds the position of Chairman of the NFFO’s
South East Committee, representing the South East on the body’s Executive
Committee.

Tony Delahunty said: “I am grateful for the confidence of my
colleagues on the NFFO Executive. It is important that the Federation continues
to reflect the diversity of our fleets and as a small boat fisherman I look
forward to playing my part. What I have learnt since becoming part of the NFFO
Executive is that the federation undertakes a huge amount of work on behalf of
the fishing industry and that work is enhanced and strengthened by the support
and involvement of grass roots fishermen on vessels of all sizes across the
country’s diverse fleet.

“There are some significant challenges on the horizon, not least the upcoming
implementation of the EU discard ban. Fishermen must ensure the industry makes
its voice heard on how the ban will be implemented and the practicalities of
the new regime managed. Unless the rules make sense at vessel level, the whole
exercise is at best futile and at worst could undermine the good work done so
far.”

Sydney’s
email to the Federation says:

I have just read Paul Trebilcock’s
Chairman’s report to nffo’s AGM earlier this month. To someone who, now at age
88, has spent almost all of his working life as a scientist working for better,
sustainable fisheries, it was a great pleasure to read an optimistic and
factual, cool document like that and I want to congratulate him warmly, and
especially on his election as President of the organisation.Keep up the good work

Sidney Holt.

We
are very proud to have received this warm appreciation from a scientific giant.

Evidence was presented to the Fish Fight campaign to show that
discards in our fisheries were not a static or growing problem but were in fact,
being steadily reduced. The NFFO advised Hugh, on film, that discarding by the
English fleet had been reduced by 50% over the previous decade. That statistic
did not appear in any of his programmes.

Information on discard trends have been reinforced more
recently by further work in ICES, that confirms that the absolute amount of
discards in the North Sea roundfish fisheries (one of those in which discards
have historically been very high) have
been reduced by 90% over the last 20 years. There are a number of reasons
for this drastic reduction including, a significantly smaller fleet, using more
selective gear, over a period of lower recruitment.

The statistics on the general
discard trends were there at the time, for anyone who cared to look, as Hugh’s
campaign reached its crescendo. The point is that Hugh’s Fish Fight didn’t look very hard for them, presumably
because they would have spoiled a rather simple narrative of a hero at the head
of a crusade. Looking like a Johnny-come-lately who arrived at the scene after
90% of the work has been done wouldn’t carry quite the same cache. The central
point is that if Hugh was interested in a fair, balanced picture his team had a
responsibility to look into the issue and the statistics more deeply. They
didn’t.

The alternative conclusion is that
they knew but took the cynical decision to ignore them.

Discards

This Federation has taken the view that discards are a major problem in some of our fisheries and that the
Common fisheries Policy has amplified the problem by the way it has managed its
fisheries. That much we have in common with Hugh.

Where we part company with Hugh is his belief is that an EU
ban is the best way to secure further progress is through a top-down blanket
ban (albeit with some scope for flexibilities and exemptions)

Fishermen from right around the coast feel aggrieved that
they now face a period of uncertainty and change on a massive scale, with no
guaranteed that their businesses will survive, to solve a problem that was
already well on its way to being solved. That is not to be complacent about discards,
it is to take a page out of the Norwegian experience, from which we can learn
that a steady, incremental approach, resolving issues as they arise is the
correct way to reduce discards; and that achieving other important fisheries
objectives such as high yields, high levels of compliance and of course,
profitable as well as sustainable fisheries should not be lost.

Hugh’s blog makes some other points on which it is important
to comment:

• There is less fish out there to catch: For Hugh to claim in
  his most recent blog that there are fewer discards because there “is less fish out there to catch” than
  in the early 1990s, suggests to us that if he is to continue as a
  campaigner in fisheries he should spend less time with his frying pan and
  more time studying ICES stock assessments. Fishing mortality has reduced
  by 50% since 2000 and the stocks are responding, sometimes dramatically.
• Discards are down because of effort control (Days at Sea limits): Effort
  control introduced under the Cod Recovery Plan will have had very little
  impact on discards because so few vessels were actually constrained by it;
  the reduction in fleet days at sea is mainly because of the reduction in
  the size of the fleet.
• The Discard Rate in the North Sea Cod Fishery has increased: Of course it has. The TACs in this
  mixed fishery have been set artificially low for several years in relation
  to the abundance because NS cod is seen as an iconic species in the media
  spotlight which must be rebuilt as rapidly as possible. Unless additional measures
  such as the Catch Quota Trials
  are made to work, the discard rate will increase.

Fishery-by-Fishery

The North Sea Roundfish fishery is
of course only one fishery, although one which historically had a serious
discard problem.

On the most recent statistics, 40%
of the catch in the North Sea is discarded. But 80% of that 40% is comprised of
two species: plaice and dab. These are big tonnages. A lot of this is caught in
the sole fishery where further selectivity without losing the valuable sole catch
is very difficult.

However, scientists reckon that up
to 6o% of plaice survive (depending on season, gear, length of tow etc). We
think therefore plaice is likely to be a candidate for a high survival
exemption. And the problem with dab is that they have low market value although
they are perfectly edible. That is why we suggest that celebrity chefs in
future should devote their main energies to encouraging their consumption.

All this highlights the complexity
of the issues and the need for a fishery-by-fishery approach.

Hugh’s credibility as a
campaigner may have been dented but one thing is certain, the EU landings
obligation will come into force for
the main demersal fisheries on January 1 2016. How the ban is implemented will be critical. If the regional
discard plans developed by member states are well thought through, make
intelligent use of the quota flexibilities and exemptions, we as an industry
will do our bit to adapt. And there are potentially some good things in the
approach, such as the incentives for skippers to fish more selectively; and the
removal of those EU rules which generate discards. It is however a high risk
strategy both in terms of vessel and fleet viability and losing undermining the
progress towards sustainable fishing that has been made over the last 15 years
or so.

NFFO Chief Executive Barrie Deas debating the discard ban with Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall on Newsnight

The ban begins coming into force at the beginning of next
year and will require fishermen to land all quota species they catch, unless
there is a specific exemption, instead of throwing back those species of little
monetary value or those caught outside quota.

The Fish Fight campaign, led by TV chef Hugh
Fearnley-Whittingstall, has been one of the driving forces behind the discard
ban. The central charge laid by the fishing industry against Hugh’s Fish Fight
is that the public and politicians were misled by its campaign which claimed
discards was a problem not being addressed by those in the catching sector.

The graph below from an authoritative source demonstrates in
the North Sea roundfish fishery, discards had already been reduced by nearly
90% since 1993, before Hugh arrived on the scene. Minimal research and a quick
look at the science would have shown this. Would the politicians have voted for
a blanket discard ban had Hugh presented a fair and balanced picture?

The industry achieved this huge reduction in discards
through partnership between fishermen and scientists, developing more selective
gear and fishing methods, and through reducing the fishing effort.

Overall,
the whole English fleet reduced its discards by 50% over the last 10 years,
with every reason to believe that this progress would continue through multiple
initiatives at local fishery level. However, now the industry has to put
its efforts into solving the problem of how to operate within an unworkable
landing obligation.

Introduction

The reform of the Common Fisheries Policy, agreed in June 2013, has been portrayed as a turning point in the history of European Fisheries.

It’s true that the EU landings obligation/discard ban, the centrepiece of the reform, will involve a radical reorientation of arrangements that have been in place since the CFP came into force 30 years ago. At this stage there is a great deal of uncertainty about what the landings obligation will actually mean in terms of vessel operations and viability. Equally, we don’t know what the new regime will mean for us in terms of quota management, or technical measures, the availability of exemptions, enforcement or additional reporting requirements. Worryingly, we don’t know whether the change will mean lower or higher fishing mortality. Working through these issues will be central to the Federation’s work in the next eighteen months and beyond.

However, despite these changes, there is a much more significant turning point in the CFP and it is reflected vividly in the ICES scientific advice. The graph below provides a powerful illustration that the real turning point in European fisheries came in the year 2000, at least insofar as the North East Atlantic is concerned.

Trends in Fishing Mortality (Fishing Pressure) ICES

The dramatic fall in fishing mortality from the year 2000 portrayed here, is by far the most significant factor in shaping our future as an industry and as a fisheries policy. The graph:

• covers all of the main species groupings
• refers to the whole of the North East Atlantic
• shows that after something like 70 years of incremental increases in fishing mortality, fishing pressure has been drastically reduced

There are multiple causes for this radical change. For the demersal fisheries, the painful measures taken to rebuild the cod stocks will have played a central part; but landing controls, better selectivity, industry mindset, collaboration between scientists and fishermen, long term management plans and capacity reduction, along with twenty or thirty other factors, have all contributed. Probably the most significant has been the reduction in the size of the fleets.

This change carries the most profound consequences. Stocks are rebuilding, some spectacularly, as illustrated by North Sea plaice and Northern hake below.

North Sea Plaice (ICES) and Northern Hake (ICES)

In the North Sea, natural mortality is now more significant than fishing mortality. This means that predation patterns are therefore much more significant than previously and this poses major new challenges for fisheries management. All of this needs to be taken into account in the development of the new generation of multi-annual management plans.

Media Lag

The reduction in fishing mortality is part of a package of very good news for fishing. Stocks are rebuilding. Fishermen are sharing knowledge with, and working in partnerships, with scientists. Aspects of the reform, particularly regionalisation of policy open the prospect of a much more flexible and responsive CFP.

The mainstream media however seems stuck in a catastrophe narrative inwhich fishing is automatically associated with collapsing fish stocks, overfishing and illegality. Who could forget the Sunday Times announcement that there were only 100 adult cod left in the North Sea? (the correct figure by the way was 23 million); something subsequently lampooned by the BBC as the “ most inaccurate headline in history.”

Breaking this media obsession with negative reporting and unjustified attacks on the reputation of the fishing industry has been one of our main initiatives over the course of the year, in partnership with communications experts Acceleris. Quickly rebutting unjustified assertions but going beyond this to present a series of positive messages that are picked up and repeated by the media has at least begun to turn the tide of hostile, and often lazy, media coverage. We have, as a result of our efforts, had many successes in having the industry portrayed in a fairer and more balanced way. Some of the highlights have been Megavissy fisherman, David Warwick, talking on Drive Time Radio to 6 million listeners about his life as a fisherman; Radio 4’s Today programme discussing rebuilding cod stocks, and our initiative with celebrity chef Mitch Tonks, using the conservation status of hake and its superb eating qualities to broaden the discussion to the more generally improving stocks situation.

Fleet Diversity

One unmissable characteristic of the NFFO’s membership is its diversity. The continuum of vessel sizes from under-10 metre beach-launched boats working close to shore, to large freezer trawlers harvesting the pelagic and demersal stocks in international waters and often hostile environments are all represented – and every size in between. Nephrops trawlers, gill-netters, beam trawlers, whitefish freezers, whitefish trawlers, seine netters, inshore potters, drift netters, scallopers, hand-liners, long-liners, shrimpers, whelkers, fly- shooters, twin-riggers, nephrops freezers, multi-riggers, inshore trawlers, tuna longliners, cocklers, rod and liners, large crabbers, fast potters, inshore netters pelagic trawlers and RSW vessels.

Organisationally, we are in producer organisations, the non-sector and under-10m pool; in large and small constituent associations or none.

Skippers range in age from their late teens to their 80s.

The diversity of fleet ownership is reflected too, from single vessel owners, family owned boats, to corporate groups. And reflecting the international ownership of the contemporary fleet, we have English, Welsh, Northern Irish, Anglo-Dutch, Anglo-Spanish and Anglo-Icelandic members. All are welcome members of the NFFO.

One might think that representing such diversity would be a weakness. But the opposite is true. The NFFO is held together by one single idea – that we are better unified and strong than divided and weak. Our shared interest is in defending fishing from bureaucratic mismanagement and media misrepresentation. Our Executive Committee reflects the diversity of our membership and we all have an interest in covering each other’s back. Greenpeace’s attack on the NFFO last year bounced off because apart from being poorly researched and inaccurate, it was transparently an attempt to split the industry and set fishermen against fishermen.

Mutuality – providing support for those who need it, when they need it – and expecting and getting that support back is what the Federation is all about. And if we are the most respected, influential, fishermen’s organisation in the country, then that is the reason.

Marine Protected Areas

Undoubtedly, one of the biggest challenges facing the fishing industry today is the Government’s drive to establish a network of marine protected areas in UK waters. The displacement of fishing activity from MPAs is a real potential threat to livelihoods and, especially when the process is driven by environmental fundamentalism rather than a focused and balanced conservation agenda.

The Federation has played a central role of the in establishing the MPA Fishing Coalition, which brings together a wide range of fishing interests who are equally concerned about the threat posed to their customary fishing grounds. Under the chairmanship of Dr Stephen Lockwood, MPAC has effectively held government, and its statutory conservation advisors, to account during the process of designation. It is now working on the management regime within designated sites, whether domestic or European.

MPAC can fairly claim to have obliged the authorities to examine their protocols for gathering evidence used in designation, seen the departure of the most gung-ho personalities, and even seen the NGOs abandon their position of a rushed, evidence-free approach to designation. The rational and evidence-based process now in the main followed by Defra, the MMO and IFCAs, owes much to the corrective work of MPAC. There is much more work to do and for as long as that work is required the NFFO will be one of the main pillars of MPAC. MPAC readily acknowledges the widespread support that it has received from fishing organisations across the UK and in other member states.

Lifejackets

The Federation made the decision last year to coordinate the purchase and distribution of 1000 personal floatation devices to fishermen. With EFF grant and Seafish support it has been possible to provide the PFDs for £10 each. To our delight the initiative has been replicated by others associated with the fishing industry. Hopefully, this will be a landmark in the use of lightweight PFDs on deck and more generally, the building of a strong safety culture within the industry.

Electronic Logbooks

The EU requirement to transfer from paper to e-logbooks for recording catch at sea has been mishandled by both Defra and the MMO. As a legal requirement, with substantial penalties for non-compliance, both policy and delivery arms of Defra owe a duty of care to the industry which has not been forthcoming. A series of technical issues, communications failures and inadequate industry guidance has left many fishermen stressed and out of pocket. There was an assumption that equipment suppliers could be relied on to sort our difficulties as they arose and as time has moved on it has been abundantly clear that this was a hugely over-optimistic assumption. The Federation raised the problem a number of times at national level and has been active in arranging meetings at port or regional level where the problems faced have been properly aired. It is vital that this is done in time before the additional reporting requirements associated with the landings obligation fall on us.

Shellfish

Shellfish is a vitally important resource for a range of coastal and offshore vessels. The Federation’s Shellfish Committee has produced well thought through and balanced recommendations which are slowly making their way into policy. Capping effort at the high capacity end of the fleet whilst keeping flexibility at the bottom end has been a key part of the Committee’s work. The crab and lobster fisheries are vital for the under-10 fleet. These fisheries benefit from the fact that all returns to the sea survive and so “discarding” is a positive benefit that has been enhanced by V-notching.

The Federation has also been an active partner in the Acrunet Project, which aims to lay the foundations for a profitable and sustainable shellfish sector by working with international partners.

Winter Storms

The Federation prides itself on being responsive to fishermen’s concerns as they arise. The virtually unprecedented series of winter gales which caused widespread infrastructure damage also prevented thousands of fishermen from earning a living over the winter months. The Federation met with Fisheries Minister, George Eustice, on 27th February to press for a package of support for those affected. A package was announced on 3rd March and the Federation has been monitoring it subsequently to minimise bureaucratic hurdles to successful access to the support which is primarily aimed at lost static gear.

Advisory Councils/ Regionalisation of the CFP

A great deal of effort and resources has been put by the NFFO into working within the regional advisory councils, since they were first established in 2004. Holding a privileged position within the EU consultative system, the advisory councils have proven their worth as a place where mature deliberation can be given to fisheries policy with other stakeholders, before considered pieces of advice are prepared. The RACs have been regarded as the most successful component of the 2004 CFP reform and it is in no small part because of this positive experience that the regionalisation agenda within the CFP has moved forward. Member states may now cooperate in policy formulation at regional seas level and their recommendations go forward for adoption through the European legislative system. This cumbersome process is not ideal but it does offer the prospect of moving gradually away from the prescriptive micro-management that has characterised the CFP in the past. It is a little early to say how the advisory councils will fit into this new process but there is one thing clear: the optimum means to arrive at sensible and workable fisheries policy is to have the three main players in the room together when decisions are made – fisheries managers, fisheries stakeholders and fisheries scientists. With some luck and good judgement this is the direction in which the bulk of fisheries policy will now move. The alternative, of detailed policy decisions made under by co-decision between the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament is unthinkable, like a distillation of the worst aspects of the past.

Under-10m Fleet

The Federation, during 2013, helped to shift the terms of a sterile and divisive debate about quota shares onto a focused discussion on means to increase access to those under-10m vessels which faced acute quota shortage. By focussing on the class of vessel, area and species in which the problems were faced, the Federation successfully signposted a way forward. For the larger class of super-under-10s, dependent more or less exclusively on quota species, this lies with closer cooperation with the quota managers within producer organisations who have the skills and contacts to access quota when it is needed. The Ramsgate Pilot project confirmed the value of a collaborative approach for the higher catching under 10s (about 160 vessels, 14% of the under-10m fleet.) For the rest of the under-10m fleet, the facility to change target species as local abundance waxes and wanes is the preeminent need and the quota pool arrangement accommodates this well.

There will always be, we suppose, those outside the industry who seek to exploit divisions within the industry, and there will always be a few gullible souls attracted to conspiracy theories and victimhood. The Federation’s approach – to focus on the real quota pinch-points, the reasons for them and what might realistically be done to resolve them – offers instead hope of steady improvement, through collaboration and dealing with real rather that imaginary issues.

The inshore fleet faces many issues ahead. With limited range, inshore vessels are more exposed if displaced from their customary fishing grounds by marine protected areas or infrastructure projects like offshore wind. They too will be affected by the landings obligation. Despite the difficulties of geography, it is important that the inshore fleets fully participate in the Federation through our regional committee structure and ensure that their voices are heard at the highest level.

Devolution and Independence

Whichever way the Scottish referendum vote goes on the 18th September, it will be important for fishermen in the rest of the UK to ensure that any settlement – an independent Scotland, devo-max, or a continuation of the status quo – is not to their detriment. The Federation in 2008 successfully fought off SNP plans for a Scottish quota management system that would have had significant adverse effects on other UK vessels. In the end this manoeuvre turned out to be something of a self-inflicted wound as quota fled Scotland as a result. But it did provide a warning and the Federation will be alert to a repeat, or the trading of fishing interests to secure benefits elsewhere, should the political temperature be turned up immediately pre or post referendum.

NFFO Services Limited

Our commercial division, NFFO Services Limited, plays an important role in the offshore liaison and the provision of fishing vessels as guard vessels. Emerging from the necessary dialogue between fishing and other seabed users – especially big infrastructure projects like oil and gas pipelines, submarine cables or offshore renewable energy – NFFO Services provides a service which ensures clear and direct communications before, during and if necessary, after the construction phase. With more than 30 years experience, NFFO was a pioneer and remains the leader in the field of offshore communication and liaison.

Training Trust

NFFO services Limited has generously supported the NFFO Training Trust, a registered charity, which provides grants for young fishermen’s training and certification, safety equipment and the education of the public about the realities of fishing.

Safety and Training

The Fishing Industry Safety Group, where regulator and fishermen meet to develop practical and workable safety has initiatives has been active for many years. From time to time it is healthy to revamp arrangements and so it is with FISG which is currently under discussion to give it a firmer edge in developing a safety culture within the industry. We welcome Robert Greenwood who has taken over from Jim Hudson as the Federation’s Safety and Training Officer and wish Jim well in his well earned retirement.

Salmon

The small commercial salmon and trout fishery off the coast of North East of England has for many years been the focus of attempts by powerful landed and riparian owners to force its closure. It has only been the tenacious defence of the fishery by the netsmen themselves, with the vigorous support of the Federation that explains its survival into the 21st century. Well managed and with minimal impact, ministers’ decision to speed up the phase-out of the drift net fishery and curbs on the T&J net fishery owes everything to cronyism and the influence of powerful groups – and nothing to rational conservation or fairness. It is a blot on this Government’s record.

Conclusion

A report like this can only provide an overview, a flavour, of the Federation’s work, which covers many issues that it has not been possible to mention today. I could have discussed the review of fishing vessel licensing, the Commission’s consultation on technical conservation, the marine strategy framework directive or our ongoing work with scientists in the Fisheries Science Partneship projects. All of these issues and many others are vitally important, either to the fishing industry as a whole, or small or large groups within it.

The point is that fishermen have an organisation that is theirs, and is working on their behalf the whole year round. Without an organisation, the industry would be at the whim of politicians, media distortions, the swivel-eyed end of the environmental movement and the bureaucracy in Brussels.

Value it. Be part of it and above all make sure that it knows your views.

Paul TrebilcockNFFO Chairman

NFFO Training Trust Chairman, Bob Casson, said:

“We are delighted to announce that we are in a position this
year to make grants of £50,000 to help fishermen with their training and
acquisition of safety equipment. The generosity of our donors and in
particular, NFFO Services Limited, means that we again can invite regional
organisations to apply for grants. We have found that this is the most
effective way to tailor the grants to local needs.”

Last year the Training Trust helped fishermen get through
their safety certification and achieve skippers’ tickets. The grants were also
spent on lifejackets, hand-held radios and other safety equipment.

Bob Casson added, “Each year the Federation’s commercial
division, NFFO Services Limited, donates what it can afford and this is a way
in which we can spread the benefits across the fishing industry. We know that
it is appreciated because of the very encouraging feedback that we receive.”

• Following a meeting in York, between the NFFO and a team of MMO
  senior officials, including Chief Executive, James Cross, Barrie Deas, Chief
  Executive of the NFFO said:“This is not an immediate resolution of all the issues facing the
  industry; there is no magic wand. But there is now a recognition within the MMO
  and Defra that we face a series of quite fundamental issues and there is now a palpable
  commitment to resolving those issues through a workable and pragmatic approach,
  working closely with the industry. Moving beyond simple denial that there is a
  problem has taken time but that has now been achieved. The combination of
  national level discussions such as those held today, and the series of regional
  port meetings, to hear the views of those at the cutting-edge, has been crucial
  to finding a way forward.”

“A failure to appreciate the complexity of implementing
e-logs along with weak procurement arrangements, have lead to stress and costly
errors across the industry. The problems have become more intense as e-logs and
VMS have been extended to the very diverse 12 to 15 metre fisheries. Over-reliance
on suppliers to provide industry guidance, and a failure to appreciate a range
of technical issues has compounded the confusion.”

Multi-faceted
Problems

The issues confronting the both regulators and fishermen are
complex and multi-faceted and include:

• The provisions of the EU Control Regulation and
  how they are interpreted in Brussels
• The inadequacy of guidance for the industry
• A series of unresolved technical issues
• Gaps between the regulator and the commercial
  suppliers (failures in the procurement process)
• Communications breakdowns and lack of technical
  support/advice
• Signal failures (relating to VMS too)
• High transmission costs

For day-boats, a conflict between meeting
regulatory catch recording requirements and the priority of the safety of the
crew and vessel

A series of port level meetings around the coast have been
useful in flushing out technical, guidance, safety, and cost problems
experienced. A meeting between fisheries administrations will also shortly take
place to take stock of the situation and possibly agree changes to the approach
followed so far.

Grant Support

The MMO was able to confirm that the industry’s fears about
having to face the costs of repeated software upgrades could be allayed,
subject to a Statutory Instrument that will shortly go before Parliament. The
new legislation will provide scope for the Government to cover future and past
software upgrades by grant.

Quota Management

The meeting confirmed that many of the problems currently
faced by quota managers in obtaining timely and accurate catch statistics can
be traced back to problems with e-logs systems. This is amplified in England
because of the larger number of individual vessels and the diversity of our
fisheries. This underlined the urgency in resolving the myriad outstanding
e-log issues. Accurate catch reporting is at the heart of the management system
and resolving these issues was given a high priority.

Landings Obligation

Resolving the problems associated with e-log implementation
has been given an added intensity by the impending EU landings obligation. Additional
reporting burdens are anticipated (notwithstanding Defra’s assessment that
fishermen are already exposed to the heaviest reporting and monitoring burden
of any of its stakeholders.) The Federation stressed that it would be
absolutely critical to resolve the e-log issues before that deadline.

Lessons Learnt

The Federation also made the point that the hard won lessons
associated with e-log implementation should be applied going forward into the
landings obligation.

These are:

• The absolute requirement for an adaptive approach that can adjust
  rapidly to resolve issues as they arise
• The equally essential need for concrete discussions with those affected
  by the new regime from the beginning
• Avoid gold
  plating European requirements and make use of flexibilities that are
  provided

EFF/EMFF

The opportunity was taken to raise again the industry’s view
that the MMO approach to processing EFF/EMFF grants placed impediments to
fishermen’s access to these funds. After an extensive discussion over the MMO’s
stewardship obligations and how the system could be streamlined, it was agreed
to collaborate in designing an application
pathway for fishermen that map out how the worst of the obstacles could be
avoided. The MMO stressed that it had a vital interest in making grants
available to the industry. The Federation will be working with the MMO on this
initiative in the coming weeks and months.

The Charity, which this year celebrates its 175 anniversary, launched the competition to raise awareness of its work providing financial support to ex-seafarers and encouraging those in need to come forward for help.

The competition, now in its third year, received entries from across the UK and was judged by poet, broadcaster and comedian, Ian McMillan and supported by the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations. The competition, which ran across the Charity’s social media platforms and website www.shipwreckedmariners.org.uk, saw participants penning five line poems about the sea and the men and women who dedicate their lives to the ocean as well the challenges they face.

The winning limerick came from Peter Hamill from Accrington who penned:
When the wind from the west blows a gale With the waves washing over the rail Think back on the days When the sky was a haze And the sea was as smooth as the sail.

Peter entered the competition after seeing a post from judge Ian McMillan on Twitter and after “visualising a bearded castaway sticking his poem in a bottle and throwing it out to sea”. In his youth, Peter spent time on his uncle’s yacht in Greenock off the west coast of Scotland where he used to listen to tales of the ocean. In the 18 and under category, the winner was 18 year old Jade Cuttle from Selby, North Yorkshire, whose limerick was inspired by her Grandfather’s stories of his service in the Royal Navy.
Her winning entry was:
Through tides that tear the shore to shreds, And winds that whip and dust the decks, That rip at rails and sagging sails, Through gust and gale and hurling hail, This ship will storm the seas ahead.
Shipwrecked Mariners’ Society, Chief Executive, Commodore Malcolm Williams said: “We were delighted with the entries to this year’s limerick competition. Initiatives like this are an important way for us to raise awareness of the work we do on behalf of this vulnerable community and to encourage people suffering hardship to come forward for support. The past 12 months have again shown the importance of our work. We received 650 new applications for assistance and in total paid out over £1.4 million in 2,200 cases of need showing our work is as important today as it was 175 years ago.”

Ian McMillan commented: “I wanted to support this competition because my dad was in the Navy for 30 years and he often talked about friends he had lost at sea so this felt like a very relevant and important competition to judge. There are still mariners all over the country who are in need of support making the work of the Charity as important as ever. The limericks were extremely creative and really captured the feel of seafaring.”

National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations, Chief Executive, Barrie Deas, said: “Through our work with UK fishermen, we see firsthand the often life changing support the Shipwrecked Mariners’ Society provides to our island nation’s ex-seafarers. We are proud to be supporting this competition and think the winning entries really capture the feel of life at sea.”

The winners will receive a recording of their poems being read by Ian McMillan, as well as an engraved Shipwrecked Mariners’ Society barometer.For more information about the Society and to view a selection of limericks from this year’s competition, please visit www.shipwreckedmariners.org.uk

Appointed to help supply a safety
culture within the fishing industry, Robert will be responsible for liaising
closely with the NFFO’s partner organisations such as the Maritime and
Coastguard Agency and the Department of Transport to ensure new safety
legislation is practical for those working at sea. Originally from a fishing
family in Selsey, Robert joins the federation following 14 years as a sea
safety instructor at industry authority, Seafish.

On his appointment, Robert
commented: “Working in the fishing industry is still ranked as one of the most
dangerous professions in the UK with almost 3,500 accidents having occurred on
UK fishing vessels in the last ten years, resulting in the loss of 94 lives.
From my first hand experience of life on a fishing boat, I am keen to work with
the industry to marry safety regulations with the practical implications and
work together with individuals to help save lives at sea”

National Federation of Fishermen’s
Organisations, Chief Executive, Barrie Deas, said “Safety is a key priority to
the federation and the industry as a whole. With Robert’s appointment we are
hopeful to continue leading the way in safety at sea and encourage people to
take ownership of their own safety in terms of both training and equipment.”

Robert’s appointment follows the
retirement of former Safety and Training Officer Jim Hudson who worked with the
NFFO for almost ten years and will still continue to support the organisation’s
safety team.

The NFFO has embarked on a number
of initiatives to promote further safety at sea and last year partnered with
the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation (SFF), the European Fisheries Fund (EFF),
the Marine Management Organisation (MMO) and the Northern Ireland Department of
Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD) to provide 6,000 subsidised personal
floatation devices to British fishermen to help cut man overboard deaths.

For more information visit https://www.nffo.org.uk/ or follow Robert’s
new Twitter profile @NFFO_Safety

Fisheries
are lumped together with agriculture and forestry but this group has the lowest
consumption of fossil energy in oil/tonnes equivalent by sector.

http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/daviz/total-final-energy-consumption-by-sector#tab-chart_4

The
purpose of drawing the Norwegian Association into discussions on major policy
areas, such as the EU landings obligation and multi-annual management plans, is
in recognition that many North Sea demersal stocks are shared with Norway, and
subject to joint management. It makes no sense at all to work up a plan to
deliver to the Norwegians, only to have it blocked at the last hurdle. Better
to work openly with the Norwegians from the outset in a spirit of cooperation,
solving difficult problems together.

Besides,
the Norwegians bring insight and experience that can be extremely useful in
dealing with the discard ban.

During
the meeting, the main conclusion of Norge
Fisarlag on the implementation EU landings obligation was succinct: “You
should start with fewer species and go more slowly.”

Giving
fisheries managers and the fishing industry a fighting chance to deal with the
issues as they arise seems eminently sensible to both the Norwegian Fishermen’s
Association and the EU fishing industry – but that’s not the way it’s going to
be.

The
Norwegians repeatedly emphasised the need for a pragmatic approach. The
penalties for discarding in Norway may be very severe but they seem to be
applied only to the most entrenched repeat offenders. There is also some
flexibility in discarding small amounts of unwanted catch. The discard ban in
Norway applies to dead and dying fish unless they are damaged, either by
predation or during fishing operations.

The
latest generation of Norwegian fishing vessels have integrated fish meal plants
aboard to deal with all “unwanted”fish.

Enforcement
of any discard ban is acknowledged to be challenging. The Norwegian Coastguard
monitors the fisheries by using direct observation, inspectors aboard some
vessels, and by checking catch compositions against a reference fleet. But the
Norwegians are adamantly against the use of CCTV cameras.

There
are lessons to be learnt here without necessarily following the Norwegian
system slavishly. Indeed Norge Fiskarlag
explicitly recognised that the demersal fisheries in the North Sea are much
more complex with many more species to deal with than the relatively “clean”
fisheries at North Norway.

These
were considered to be fruitful discussions by all parties and the intention is
to find cost effective ways of working closely with Norge Fiskelag in the future.

The
Federation has on several occasions raised the catalogue of e-log problems
experienced by the industry and has highlighted flaws in way the e-log policy
has been implemented, at national level. However, it was felt that the only way
rapid progress could be made would be if the MMO and DEFRA heard directly from
the fishermen who are obliged to use the new equipment and who are facing these
problems on a daily basis. The regional/port meetings are therefore an attempt
to flush out all of the issues and address them, one by one.

“After a period of denial through which the MMO and DEFRA refused to
accept that there was anything wrong, beyond teething troubles, there is now an
acceptance that there are a range of fundamental problems with the system;
these potentially expose fishermen to prosecution for non-compliance”,
said Ned Clark, Chairman of the NFFO’s North East Committee. “Thankfully,
there is now recognition that there are indeed serious problems and these
meetings around the coast are an important step forward in resolving them”,
he added.

The problems fall into a number of categories:

• Technical
• Safety
• Lack
  of adequate guidance
• Lack
  of advisory support
• High
  costs

“We
appreciate the constructive and pragmatic approach now being applied by the MMO
to get the system up and running in an acceptable way. When the new reporting
technologies are used for vessel and catch monitoring and control and it is a
legal obligation with serious consequences for non-compliance, it is essential
that the system works. So far it hasn’t.”

“An important step forward was having one of the main suppliers in the
room to hear the issues first hand.”

Some of the problems with the e-log/VMS system have been caused by the way the
policy has been implemented in the UK but others – especially the safety issues
– have been caused by the way that the EU Control Regulation has been drafted.
“This is what happens when policy is made remote from the fisheries on the
ground” said Ned Clark.

“It’s been a mess but this type of meeting is vital in getting us to a system
that is easy to use, delivers what is necessary, is low cost and doesn’t
hamper fishermen’s work, or compromise their safety.”

Programme

All NFFO
Members Welcome

Wednesday 7th May 2014

10.30am: Coffee

11.00am: AGM Formal Business

12.00pm: The
meeting will be joined by UK Fisheries Minister, George Eustice MP

After a brief address the Minister will
participate in an open floor session

1.15pm:

Buffet lunch

2.00pm:
Close
of Proceedings

A team of
researchers at Plymouth University are interested in the views, experiences and
suggestions of fishermen. The project, led by Kayleigh Wyles (pictured), aims
to gain a greater understanding of marine litter (any persistent, manufactured
or processed solid material that enters the marine environment) and look at
schemes that aim to address this issue of rubbish on our coasts and in our seas
(such as the Fishing for Litter scheme). By learning more about fishermen’s
experiences and opinions on the matter, this research project hopes to help
make things easier for:

• The
  marine environment

• The
  fishing industry as a whole

• Local
  harbour authorities

• Individual
  fishermen

In order to explore
this, the team are conducting short phone interviews or online surveys with
fishermen. It does not mater whether fishermen have participated in the Fishing
for Litter Scheme or not, we are interested to get their opinions. The surveys only
take about 10 minutes and as a thank you, participates are entered in to a draw
for cash prizes. To find participate please either complete a quick online
form following this link: www.bit.do/marinelitter OR alternatively, you can phone
or text Kayleigh Wyles on 07407 542 083 to arrange a convenient time for
a quick interview.

On behalf of the
research team, thank you for your help.

MPAC
Chairman, Dr Stephen Lockwood said, “All the best-practice models available
suggest that in order to obtain protection for vulnerable features, whilst at
the same time minimising the conflict of MCZs with fishing businesses and
communities, it is necessary for regulators to engage closely with fishermen at
site level. It is in these vital discussions that adjustments and adaptations
can be found to achieve conservation objectives without displacing fishermen
from their customary fishing grounds.

“A
consensus approach offers the best way of securing fishermen’s support and
involvement in securing conservation goals. Following our recent meeting with
Defra when we discussed the timetable for designating MCZs in English waters,
our fear is that when push comes to shove, this vital engagement will be lost
in a rushed process.”

“We welcome
the Government’s commitment to a rational, evidence-based and phased approach,
to designation of marine sites. This is the only way we can be assured that the
features and site boundaries are in the right locations.

“But once
designations are made, experience suggests that there will be intense pressures
from some quarters to implement management measures straight away and the
local-level discussions will be pushed aside. The experience of the European
marine sites is fresh in our minds. The threat of legal challenged by one NGO
was enough to press the fast-forward button. It is far from inconceivable that
once formal designation of all three tranches of MCZs in English waters is
made, these kinds of pressures will re-emerge. In addition to a vocal NGO
community, geared up to push for immediate implementation measures, there are a
number of international obligations like OSPAR and EU legislative requirements
that will set up irresistible pressures on the ministers of the day.”

“All this
if fine if all you want is a tick-box exercise so that you can move on to the
next environmental target and claim the credit. But if you want a lasting,
equitable and effective outcome, time for discussion is required.

“It is our
belief and contention that formal designation should be withheld until after decisions have been reached on
suitable management measures for each site. And those decisions should only
take place after proper meaningful talks with the fishermen who will
potentially be affected. Calm discussions will deliver the best outcomes but
our fear is that the designation process is set up in a way that will exactly
preclude this.”

Dr Lockwood
said that MPAC has also identified two other areas of concern in its
discussions with Defra. At present there does not appear to be a clear
coordination of site designations across devolved administrations or with
bordering states. A lack of adequate, and transparent, coordination could
result in unnecessary duplication of sites necessary to meet statutory and
international obligations. In addition, despite numerous promises to undertake
a review of possible effort displacement from MCZ, no such review has been
produced. MPAC is worried that not only could displacement jeopardise
livelihoods in marginal areas but could exacerbate stock management problems
associated with forthcoming no-discard measures.

The voice
of the UK fishing industry and one of the country’s leading seafood chefs have
joined forces to encourage British restaurants and retailers to put hake on the menu after finding it to currently be
the ‘UK’s most sustainable fish’.

The campaign comes after
new research* revealed that half of us (52 per cent) eat fish at least once a
week and one in five (19 per cent) eat it around three times a week – yet the
majority of people rarely stray from the ‘seafood staples’ of cod, haddock and
salmon.

The
National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations (NFFO), which represents
fishermen in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, has
joined forces with leading seafood chef, food writer and restaurateur Mitch
Tonks to launch a series of free recipe cards encouraging the
British public to consider hake in
their diet, after crowning it the ‘UK’s most
sustainable fish’.

Hake was named as the UK’s
current sustainability champion fish after the NFFO conducted
an evaluation of stock and catch data against a criteria of 10 industry sustainability
markers. Hake, against
very stiff competition from other species, currently meets more of the standards than any other species.

The Food
Standards Agency recommends eating at least two portions of fish a week (1).
Hake, a species closely related to cod and haddock, is commonly eaten in
Europe, with the Spanish annually consuming 6kg per person – equating to around
half of all hake eaten across the continent. With
scientific research showing burgeoning stock levels of hake in UK waters(2),
catch quota for the fish has been increased by 49 per cent in 2014. However, of
the 12,000 tonnes of hake caught by British fishermen last year, just 1.5 per
cent was consumed in the UK.

Despite the popularity of fish as a healthy food source, NFFO
research* spanning 1,000 consumers revealed many fish eaters have never tried
some of the UK’s most sustainable fish species. Around half of people surveyed
had never tried hake (53 per cent) or pollock (47 per cent), whilst two thirds
of people (62 per cent) had never tried coley.

The top reasons people cited for not trying
alternative types of fish included the retail price (30 per cent), not liking
the look of the fish / considering it ugly (24 per cent) and poor availability
in supermarkets (11 per cent).

To identify the most sustainable fish, the
federation identified those stocks fished at or above maximum sustainable yield
(MSY) – considered the gold standard of sustainable fishing. This measures the
maximum catch that can be removed from the sea without jeopardising its future.
Hake also adheres to a number of other sustainability markers identified by the
NFFO.

The
NFFO’s chief executive, Barrie Deas, said: “In the last decade, the UK fishing
industry has worked closely with scientists to improve the sustainability of
commercial fishing, developing more selective gear and catching methods which
reduce the ecological footprint of fishing. Over that time we have witnessed a dramatic reduction in
fishing pressure across all of the main species groups and across the North East Atlantic fish stocks
are building, some very rapidly.

“In the sustainability stakes I’m pleased to say hake faces stiff competition as many stocks, including plaice,
haddock, herring and sole, ticked many of the boxes. In some stocks, including cod, mortality rates have
been halved pushing them up the sustainability rankings. UK fishermen realise
that their future is intimately linked
to the way that they fish and now sustainability is at the heart of everything
they do.

Mitch Tonks added: “Anything we can do to encourage people to try more fresh, sustainable
fish whilst supporting UK fishermen can only be a good thing. Hake is always a
popular option at my own restaurants and it’s readily available through
fishmongers and retailers. It’s a white fish which is simple to adapt different
recipes and flavours to and as such I hope more people give it a try.”

(1) Food Standards
Agency: What is a healthy balanced diet? http://food.gov.uk/scotland/scotnut/healthycatering/healthycatering2/healthycatering02#.Ut0CEfTFLsM

(2) International Council
for the Exploration of the Sea’s (ICES) advice on hake http://www.ices.dk/sites/pub/Publication%20Reports/Advice/2013/2013/hke-nrth.pdf

Contrast
this with the disastrous delay of EU and Norway to reach agreement for 2014
until mid March, as the EU Norway process became almost fatally entangled with
the twists and turns of the mackerel dispute between EU, Norway, Iceland,
Faeroes and, belatedly, Greenland.

Unlike
the December Council, there is no mechanism to oblige the coastal states to
reach agreement on shared fisheries within a fixed time. Each individual party
is in a position to block agreement, even at the 11th hour in order to gain
marginal advantage over the others. There is a built-in incentive to escalate
issues rather than resolve them.

Coastal States

The
failure of the coastal states to reach agreement on mackerel speaks volumes of
a dysfunctional system which lacks a dispute resolution mechanism. At the
December Council, the equivalent mechanism is the qualified majority vote which
is binding on all member states. Efforts are made to accommodate everybody but
when the time comes, a vote is taken and a decision is reached.

By
contrast, the mackerel dispute degenerated into a prolonged hit and run
guerrilla war which now cause significant collateral damage, and only narrowly
avoided a complete meltdown of the EU Norway agreement.

The
EU is not blameless in allowing the EU Norway process to be hijacked by the
mackerel dispute. Woeful negotiating tactics under Commissioner Damanaki’s
direct instructions contributed significantly to the mess. And Norway’s own brutal
negotiating tactics smack of opportunism, lack of principle and sheer bad faith,
not normally associated with that country.

In
dozens of ports around the North Sea and beyond, this failure resulted in
misery for thousands of fishermen denied access to their customary fishing
grounds at the time of year that they need to be there. Fishing businesses were
jeopardised by the collective failures of their governments.

When
Iceland is finally brought into the mackerel agreement and the parties have had
time to draw breath, there will time to take stock of the failures of governance
that lay underneath the prolonged mackerel dispute. The need for better
governance at the international level – NEAFC, Coastal States and EU/ Norway is
beyond dispute. Repeated failure has become an embarrassment to the reputation
of the countries involved. The mackerel agreement will last for five years. It
is vital that international fisheries governance in the North East Atlantic is
put on a sound footing a long time before then.

Market Access

In
recent years Norway has increasingly played hardball in fisheries negotiations.
The idea of a partnership between friends has been displaced by a reckless
winner-takes-all attitude, mainly driven by a thirst for more pelagic species.
The main benefit, however, that Norway derives from the annual fisheries
agreement is unimpeded access to the vast European market for its fisheries
products. Under the EEA agreement Norway derives huge economic advantage by
selling into the EU market, free of quota limits or customs tariffs. Vast
tonnages of farmed salmon and Barents Sea cod are sold into the EU on this
basis. But during the annual fisheries negotiations this aspect of the deal is
barely if ever mentioned. Norway is safe in the knowledge that the remoteness
of trade sanctions for irresponsible behaviour in fisheries negotiations, and
the general drive towards liberalisation of the markets backed by WTO rules,
means that it is highly unlikely that this key feature of the fisheries
agreement will come into play to their disadvantage. The EU is a big world player
but powerless because it is unable to respond as an individual country might.

The NFFO’s chief executive,
Barrie Deas, said: “After many false starts and delays, agreement has now been
reached with Norway on a reciprocal deal for 2014. This means that EU vessels
can now fish in the Norwegian zone of the North Sea and TACs have been settled
for joint stocks.

“The 5 per cent quota
increase on North Sea cod is welcomed and more than justified by scientific
research on stock levels, but in our view EU Norway are arguably playing a pretty
conservative game given the problems faced with the stock in the past.
Nevertheless, cod stocks continue to grow steadily and we look forward to
further quota increases in future years.”

The spectacular rebuilding
of North Sea plaice stock is another area of good news, reflected in a fifteen
per cent increase in quota and is evidence of the successful management
practices delivered by both scientists and the industry.

According to the NFFO, the
15 per cent reduction in haddock, whiting and saithe reflect the management
plans in place and natural fluctuations in stock levels – reductions which have
been significantly modified by quota transfers from Germany.

Mr Deas added: “These
negotiations have been highly convoluted due to their entanglement with the
mackerel dispute between Faroe and Iceland. We understand that
simultaneously, a trilateral deal on mackerel has been reached between EU,
Norway and Faroe, with scope for this to be extended to Iceland quite soon,
once outstanding issues relating to Greenland have been resolved.”

The key points in the EU
Norway agreement are:

• An increase in the North Sea Cod TAC by 5%; this is in contrast to the proposed reduction of 9%. This provides a TAC in 2014 of 27,799t

• The TAC for North Sea Haddock remains as per the management plan -15% (16,092t), although the EU has secured a transfer of haddock from Norway of 2600t which mitigates the reduction to -6% (18,692t)

• Similarly in whiting, the TAC has been maintained as per the management plan -15% (38,284t) although a transfer from Norway to the EU of 750t mitigates the reduction to -8% (39,034t) – a revised management plan with an (f) of 0.15 is to be sent to ICES for evaluation

• The TAC for Saithe has been set per the management plan at 77,536t (-15%); there is to be inter-annual flexibility from 2014 onwards. Of that some 8,045t is allocated to area Via

• The TAC for plaice has been set per the management plan at 111,631t (+15%) The transfer of plaice from Norway to the EU has reduced from 700t to 300t. There is to be inter-annual flexibility from 2014 onwards.

• The uplift of cod to operate the FDF scheme has been maintained at a level of 12% of the TAC.

• The TAC for Norwegian others has been increased from 6,500t to 7,250t an increase of 11.5%

• The transfer of ling from the EU to Norway has been reduced from 6,140t to 5,500 and the transfer of Ling from Norway to the EU has increased from 850t to 950t.

• The Amount of Cod secured for EU vessels at North Norway has increased from 18,202 in to 2013 to 20,524 in 2014. The amount of haddock secured has decreased from 1,500t to 1200t

• 100,000t of Blue whiting was used to secure the transfer from Norway; this contrasts quite significantly with the 45,000t used the previous year.

The
Shipwrecked Mariners’ Society, which provides financial support
to retired or permanently disabled seafarers and their families, is launching the third instalment of its
national limerick competition. The competition was launched to
coincide with the Charity’s 175th anniversary and is set to be judged
by renowned Poet, Broadcaster and Comedian, Ian McMillan.

The Society is
inviting people of all ages, including budding young poets from schools,
colleges and youth organisations across the country and those of more mature
years to enter the popular competition and write an original poem on a maritime subject in limerick form,
consisting of no more than five lines, with the first, second and fifth
usually rhyming.

Known as the ‘Bard
of Barnsley’, Ian McMillan, who previously held the coveted position of poet in
residence at the English National Opera, has strong maritime connections, with
his father having served in the Royal Navy. To mark the occasion he penned the following
limerick in celebration of fishermen to inspire budding poets:

They work on the waves of the sea,

They’re skillful, I know you’ll agree:
They cast out their net
in the cold and the wet
So we can eat fish for our tea!

This year’s
competition is being supported by the NFFO, the representative body for
fishermen’s groups, individual fishermen and producer organisations in England,
Wales and Northern Ireland.

Chief Executive of
the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations, Barrie Deas, said:
“Whether fishermen, armed forces or merchant navy, life at sea can be hard and
dangerous. Often ex-seafarers can be left feeling isolated or in difficulty
financially, so the work of the Shipwrecked Mariners’ Society is vital in
supporting those who have dedicated their lives to the sea. By supporting this
competition, we are hopefully encouraging more people to come forward for
support and to raise awareness of this often life changing good cause.”

Speaking of his involvement Ian said: “I’m proud to
be associated with a competition that brings together two very important
skills: sea fishing and writing poetry. They’re both about tight lines
and catching something and bringing it home.”

The deadline for entries is Midnight on Friday 21st March
2014 and the charity is
offering an engraved barometer and video recording of the wining poem, read by
Ian McMillan, as a prize.

To
enter the competition, for full terms and conditions or for more information about the work
of the Society visit www.shipwreckedmariners.org.uk
or the society’s Facebook page at www.facebook.com/shipwreckedmariners.

For more information about
how the NFFO supports fishermen and other seafarers visit https://www.nffo.org.uk/