The National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations (NFFO) has welcomed the Government’s announcement of further measures to help fishermen whose livelihoods have been affected by the recent storms across the UK.
Funding will be made available towards the cost of replacing
lost or damaged fishing gear, such as crab and lobster pots and other static
gear, which could be worth up to £5,000 to fishermen.
The Government will also continue to pay lighthouse dues for
another year, saving the industry up to £140,000.
This is in addition to measures already promised, such as:
- Flexibility on quota allocations to allow
fishermen to make up lost income when conditions return to normal - Access to a £10 million business support grant
for flood-affected businesses.
NFFO Chairman, Paul Trebilcock, welcomed the support being
offered by the Government, saying: “This is an important gesture of
support to fishermen right across the fleet who have been badly affected by the
exceptional series of winter storms.
“The gear replacement support scheme will help badly
affected fishing businesses to get on their feet, especially in the inshore
fleet where the losses have been highest. The Fishermen’s Mission has done a
sterling job in helping fishermen facing an immediate financial crisis because
of loss of earnings and the additional support from DEFRA will be welcomed.
“There are other elements in this package that are also
valuable. The suspension of light dues and quota flexibilities will be of help.
“The over-15m crabbers will also be able to recover their
gear without posing days at sea entitlement.”
Fisheries Minister, George Eustice, said:
“The appalling storms over the last few months have had a
severe impact on fishing communities and we recognise that many fishermen have
lost static gear such as lobster and crab pots.
“I
saw first-hand the damage to net gear during a recent visit to Newlyn. We have
made this funding available to minimise the impact on their livelihoods and
help them to get back on their feet as quickly as possible.”
At a crunch meeting last week the minister confirmed fishermen affected
would be able to access the £10m Small Business Storm Relief Fund, which
although welcome by the NFFO, falls short of its request for specific
compensation to help the estimated 4,000 fishermen and 2,000 vessels impacted.
Fishermen have been hit hard by the recent stormy weather with many
unable to get out to sea to earn a living since before Christmas.
The NFFO Chairman, Paul Trebilcock, who attended the meeting to negotiate
on behalf of UK fishermen, said: “One of our key objectives from the meeting
was securing access for fishermen to the small business support fund, which we
did. Unfortunately we remain without any real, tangible compensation in a form
similar to that which the farming industry has received, despite both being
vital sources of food four our island nation.”
At the National Farmers’ Union conference Eustice revealed details of a
£10m Farming Flood Recovery Fund specifically designed to get farmers back on
their feet. There has also been a commitment from Sport England to provide a
£5m pot for repairing sports facilities damaged by the flooding and storms.
Mr Trebilcok added: “It’s certainly a source of frustration that resources
are being put into repairing cricket pitches before going to fishermen who are
struggling after months of no income and have damaged equipment that isn’t
cheap to fix.”
However, Mr Trebilcock pointed to the other positives coming from the
meeting: “We needed to know how the government was going to respond to damaged
infrastructure, such as harbours, sea walls and defences. Fortunately the
minister has assured us steps have been taken to secure and encourage speedy
repairs and the Marine Management Organisation has been instructed to be
flexible and expedient in providing licenses required for these repairs.”
On top of making no income while unable to get to sea, some fishermen
have suffered doubly with valuable fishing gear being irreparably damaged or
lost.
Shell fisherman John Balls from North Devon has lost almost £5,000 worth
of lobster pots in the recent storms and says he is not the only one: “Many
shell fishermen in Devon have been left in a terrible situation. We have
incurred thousands of pounds worth of damage to our pots and ropes, and as this
situation is classed as an act of God, we have been unable to claim on our
insurance.
“While other fishermen are slowly returning to work, it could be several
months until we can replace the equipment and the shellfish industry could take
up to six months to recover.”
The NFFO pressed government for support for fishermen like John who have
lost expensive gear, but the minister would not be drawn on giving a
commitment.
Mr Trebilcock continued: “Mr Eustice was sympathetic and understood the
argument about compensating those who have lost thousands of pounds of gear. He
wasn’t prepared to say ‘yes we’re going to do that’, but he has committed to
taking it into consideration.”
Following the meeting, George Eustice MP, the Fisheries Minister, said:
“The severe weather over recent months has had a significant impact on a number
of fishing communities.
“The government has made a £10m grant fund open to flood affected businesses,
and further options are being considered to help fishermen affected by storms.”
“We have been talking to officials
about the possible shape of a rescue package”, said Paul Trebilcock, Chairman
of the NFFO, and also Chief Executive of the Cornish Fish Producers
Organisation, one of the areas most severely hit by the storms.
“Now, we are meeting with George
Eustice to hear what level of political support there is for a realistic and
rapid support package.
“What is needed is immediate
short-term support to put fishing businesses back on their feet. We are not
looking for long-term subsidies, but we do believe that government has a
responsibility to underpin a return to profitability in these exceptional
circumstances. There should also be parity with the treatment afforded to the
farming industry.
“The kind of support we have been
pressing for includes:
- Immediate
access for fishermen to the Government’s small business support scheme for businesses affected by the
severe weather - Gear replacement funding for
static gear damaged or lost in the storms - An
announcement on how Government is going to help repair the infrastructures damaged by the
storms - Steps to
help fishermen recoup the lost
earnings suffered from being unable to go to sea for prolonged periods
over December, January and February - Deferral
of the Government’s intention to charge the fishing industry for light dues”
“Obviously, fishermen will judge
the Government on how much support it is willing to give and how easy it is to
access that support. These are exceptional circumstances; although, having said
that, when this latest calamity hit, the industry was only just recovering from
the losses arising from the unusually cold start to the previous year.
“This is an opportunity for the
Government to demonstrate its commitment to the fishing industry and to the
fishermen who put food on our tables in sometimes very difficult
circumstances.”
For more information visit https://www.nffo.org.uk/
With fatal
design flaws and a course that will lead it through treacherous waters, the EU
landings obligation is a high-risk gamble that has great potential for
catastrophe. Like the Titanic, where the expectations and aspirations of the
owners set up time pressures that precluded a much safer course to the
destination, the European co-legislators and the Commission have created a dangerous
path to the objective of low discard fisheries. At risk are all the gains that
have been made over the last 10 years in putting European fisheries on a sound
and sustainable footing.
Those design flaws include:
- A rushed timetable for
implementation; the Norwegian experience suggests that an incremental and
adaptive approach is required to resolve the multiple issues associated with
the biggest change in the history of the CFP
- Signs that the clean sweep of
all discard generating rules within the CFP, prior to the application of the
discard ban will be inadequate and incomplete
- Imposing an obligation on EU fleets which
requires Norway’s agreement on critical elements to make it workable
- Applying a discard ban before
serious data deficiencies have been
resolved
- Embarking without a plan on how
to deal with choke species (where the premature exhaustion of one (often
bycatch)species prevents uptake of the main economic species
- Unreasonable and unachievable requirements
that crews provide “detailed and precise records” of every last fish discarded,
when even “experts” can have problems distinguishing between species on deck
- Devolving implementation
responsibility to the regional level but then imposing unachievable conditions.
Like the Titanic, the discard ban is a grandiose, eye-catching initiative. The
great white ship impressed those who knew little or nothing about ship design, navigation
or seamanship; similarly, fishermen, scientists, control authorities and
fisheries administrators, have all voiced their concerns about the
implementation of the new discard legislation. Agreed in a maelstrom of
publicity as the centrepiece of the CFP reform, even some environmental NGOs are
now backing away from the monster that they have helped to create and set on
course towards the ice fields.
Like the
Titanic, the owners of the discard ban will be miles away and long gone when
tragedy strikes. Commissioner Damanaki,
TV celebrities, MEPs and ministers who created the bandwagon will no longer be
there to take responsibility. Some ministers, including our own, have already
gone, and more MEPs and the Commissioner will leave the stage this year –
having milked all the credit possible for the media-inspired policy and leaving
the policy to make its fateful rendezvous with the iceberg.
A Change of Course?
A change of course could save the ship even at this late stage, despite its
grievous design flaws, by navigating away from the danger zone. Member states
have the scope and responsibility to design and shape regional discard plans in ways that could reduce the risks.
Altering course through exemptions and quota flexibilities, by applying a
pragmatic control regime and by facing down some of the more poorly thought-through
aspects of the owners’ demands, could save the vessel even at the 11th hour.
There is much
to be said for regionalisation of the
CFP. It offers a means to at least begin to break away from the
over-centralised command and control approach which lies at the heart of so
many of the CFP’s failures. But to confront regionally cooperating member
states on their first outing with mission
impossible – the implementation of the discard ban – could look like a
devious plan by the Brussels technocracy to discredit decentralisation; a plot
beyond even the most swivel-eyed conspiracy theorist.
But regionally cooperating member states, working with stakeholders in the
advisory councils, is all that lies between an industry and policy moving at
full-speed towards the iceberg. That is why with our own fisheries department
in DEFRA, in the regional advisory councils and in discussions with scientist
in ICES and STECF, the NFFO has been working assiduously to secure a post-2016
regime that is consistent with the viability of the industry and which does not
squander the hard won gains made in recent years.
Pilots and Preparation
We are also
urging a dramatic expansion in funding and quota availability to undertake
pilots and trials that will allow us to anticipate the choke species – and
develop solutions consistent with the landings obligation.
One of the central issues which will determine the fate of the discard ban, and
the fishing industry’s attitude to it, will be the scale and sequence of the
quota uplifts to cover fish previously discarded. Given the extent of data
uncertainties, this has to be a central worry and we are arguing vigorously for
a thoughtful rather than a fingers-crossed
and hope for the best approach.
Follow that Ship?
Before the discard ban hits its main target – the mixed demersal fisheries – the
landings obligation will be applied to the pelagic fisheries from 1st January
2015.
Whether there will be lessons learnt from this experience and whether they will
be the right kind of lessons is a moot point. Pelagic fisheries certainly
present a lesser challenge than the mixed demersal fisheries but that it not to
say that there are no problems. Lessons will surely be learnt but is doubtful
that this will provide a helpful overall template for whitefish.
Unnecessary Voyage
One important
omission in the extensive and intense media coverage of discards has been that
before it hit the headlines, discarded fish was a problem progressively
reducing in size. Discards in the English fleet for example had reduced by 50%
in the previous decade and there is every reason to believe that this progress
would continue. Similar initiatives and
trends have taken place in other parts of the UK and in other member states.
Admittedly,
the CFP needed a shake up to remove all the legislation that currently helps to
generate discards – the catch composition rules and effort control spring to
mind – but this could have been approached in a different manner. Even in
Norway, where a discard ban has been applied pragmatically and incrementally
over 20 years, the evidence is that discarding still takes place at some level,
possibly as high as 15%. That is great progress from over 50% but it is not
zero. At least with an incremental approach there is a chance to adjust to
address the inevitable problems as they arise.
North Sea Realities
It’s been a while since there were icebergs in the North Sea but there are
certainly plenty of potential complexities and pitfalls in implementing the
landings obligation there.
The emerging statistics on the North Sea discard pattern are instructive. 40%
of the catch in the North Sea is discarded. Of that 40%, 80% is comprised of
two species: plaice and dab. Plaice (depending on a range of factors) is
estimated to have a 60% survival rate when returned to the sea. Does it make
sense to retain on board and land (dead) plaice in those circumstances,
depriving the biomass of that 60%? Is this not a prima facie case for a high survival exemption?
And the reason that dabs are discarded is that there is low market demand for
them. This is somewhere that celebrity chefs and their TV programmes could
actually do some good.
All this illustrates that the discard ban is going to be anything but
straightforward. Even before we get to the problems associated with exemptions
there are the issues of inter-species flexibility, choke species and
negotiating TAC arrangements for shared stocks with Norway.
Western Waters Complexities
If anything, the complexities are even greater in Western Waters, the seas
traversed by the Titanic on its fateful voyage. There are certainly more data
limited stocks in these fisheries, notwithstanding the close collaborative work
undertaken between ICES and the North West Waters RAC. And the fisheries are
much more mixed, raising multiple questions about quota uplift and choke
stocks. Much work remains to be done.
Disaster Averted?
Despite the parallels with the Titanic there is still time to steer the
landings obligation clear of the ice. It will not be easy, constrained as we
are by the owners’ orders. But if the captain has the courage and skill to set
a new course and to challenge, and if necessary defy, his superiors, there is a
chance that disaster can be averted.
MPAC is credited with having
brought a sense of realism to the implementation of marine protected areas – and
halted a headlong rush to establish protected areas on poorly considered
grounds. By insisting that the fishing industry has a genuine voice in the
designation of marine conservation zones, and that both designation and
management measures are always based on sound evidence, MPAC has striven to
reduce the effects of the displacement of fishing activity from its customary
grounds.
Chaired by fisheries
scientist, Dr Stephen Lockwood, MPAC holds regular meetings with DEFRA, the
MMO, Natural England and the IFCAs, to discuss the programme of marine
protected areas, as it unfolds.
MPAC has to date been
supported financially by a wide range of fishermen’s associations and
individual fishermen fearful of their livelihoods. Support has also been
received from fishermen’s organisations in the Netherlands, France, Ireland and
Belgium, also fearful of the impact of poorly designed and located MPAs.
The value of MPAs in
protecting vulnerable species and seabed features is fully recognised by MPAC.
The issue in not whether there should or should not be MPAs. It is about a
rational, fair and balanced process in their establishment them, against a
sometimes irrational push by naïve enthusiasts, who see MPAS as an
all-embracing solution for overfishing – and all the other ills of the marine
environment.
The NFFO provides the
secretariat for MPAC.
In many cases there may
be businesses unable to continue trading and large quantities of quota uncaught
if choke species take the effect highlighted in these reports. In some cases,
substantial changes in practice will be required in order for businesses to
remain profitable while observing the landings obligations. All methods used in
the analyses considered relied on very important assumptions which may not
represent the reality, and, depending on the assumptions used, may lead to very
different conclusions. However, without a large margin of flexibility there
could possibly be a substantial and unsustainable loss in profitability for
vessel businesses. The interpretation of the regulation, particularly the
application of de minimis allocations, may have substantial effects on
businesses as a consequence, the prospect of going out of business would
clearly generate a substantial incentive for individual business operators not
to comply with the landings obligation and compliance issues should be
considered in light of identified expected choke species.
Objective 1 of the CFP
requires that fishing should deliver economic and social benefits and be done
in such a way as to be environmentally sustainable. Article 15 of CFP reform
might prove inconsistent with this objective if many vessel businesses cannot
continue to trade and much of the agreed quota remains uncaught due to the
effects of choke species. Quota swaps between MS might become more difficult to
achieve because MS that previously were willing to swap away quota, may now
need that quota to prevent the species from becoming a choke species. The
problem and solutions vary by MS according to how they variously manage their
allocation of quotas to vessels / businesses. MS and Producer Organisations
that operate tradable quota units will have different solutions than those that
have equal monthly catch allocations per vessel, non-tradable and not time
flexible. Different species may choke different individual vessels and / or
groups of vessels operating in the same sea areas, depending on how access to
quota is allocated.
The bilateral talks have become the latest casualty in the bitter and prolonged dispute about the terms under which Iceland and Faeroes should be allowed to fish for mackerel. Although there is now reportedly only a very small gap between the coastal state parties on quota shares (something less than 1% separates them), Norwegian insistence on a block on Icelandic access to Faroese waters has provided a substantial 11th hour obstacle in the Coastal States negotiations. In these complex and interlinked negotiations this blockage has knock-on effects for the EU Norway agreement in setting TACs, agreeing shares and access arrangements for blue whiting, atlanto-scandian herring, and ultimately for North Sea whitefish shared stocks and North East Arctic cod – all fisheries in which the UK has a major interest.
Deal Now or Later
Towards the end of the week, member state representatives were faced with a stark choice: either work through the night towards a partial reciprocal agreement, with a conditional element linked to later agreement on the blue whiting and mackerel TACs; or break off the talks to see if progress could be made within Coastal States negotiations on the mackerel and blue whiting issues. In the event, the question was taken out of their hands when the Norwegians announced that the talks were suspended.
Joint Stocks
Aside from the high drama on the international stage over mackerel, some progress seems to have been made quietly in the background on the North Sea joint stocks. In these negotiations nothing is agreed until everything is agreed but at present the outcomes on these stocks looks like the following:
• North Sea Cod TAC rollover from 2013 level, with a further request to ICES to evaluate whether a 10% increase in the TAC is precautionary which if positive could lead to a mid-year increase. The UK and Denmark are pressing very hard for an increase on the basis that it would reduce discards of mature cod and is consistent with meeting MSY target by 2015 but there is a strong suspicion that resistance comes from Commissioner Damanaki for misplaced media/presentational reasons
• North Sea Haddock -15% in line with the agreed management plan. The UK is pressing for this to be mitigated by transfers from Norway which would be paid for in the balance and for inter annual flexibility and some West to East flexibility
• Whiting -15% in line with the agreed management plan, possibly mitigated by transfers
• Saithe -15% in line with the management plan
• Plaice + 15% in line with the management plan
• North Sea Herring -2% with a new management plan from 2016
Where to from here?
We are in uncharted waters. Although it is not unknown for the EU /Norway talks to face breakdowns and interruptions, it is unprecedented for their start to be delayed until February of the following year; to be still facing serious obstacles; and with no date for resumption; and the given reason for the breakdown disagreement in the Norwegian camp. (The EU is usually the party which faces difficulties in coordinating its position, given the diversity of fisheries in its member states).
We can only hope for an early resumption of the talks with a keener understanding amongst the parties of the widespread damage for many fishermen for as long as there is no reciprocal agreement.
Subject: Fisherman’s Plight
Dear Andrew,
My name is Tony Delahunty, I own and skipper an under 10 metre fishing vessel. My boat is based at Selsey and crewed by myself son and one another, we mainly fish for crabs and lobster. I am also Chairman of the South East National Federation Fisherman’s Organisation, and I am emailing you as our member of parliament to ask you support our request for financial help during these extreme weather conditions.
The Chief Executive of the NFFO has released a statement to the press to lobby support for the fishing industry, this is a copy of the statement.
The National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations (NFFO), which represents fishermen across England, Wales and Northern Ireland, is calling for an urgent meeting with the government to address storm damage as UK fishermen are being prevented from earning a living due to the bad weather and poor infrastructure. Fishermen along the south west coast of England and in Wales have been hit hardest by the unprecedented stormy weather conditions and could face up to two months of no fishing without any compensation for loss of earnings.
The government announced yesterday a £5,000 grant for those business affected by the storms and floods and extra help from banks via ‘payment holidays’ and loans. According to the NFFO it is essential that fishermen are factored into this support.
Tony Delahunty, a fisherman from Selsey and the NFFO’s Chairman-elect, believes it is the most sustained and ferocious weather he’s seen in his 40 years in the industry: “In all my time as a fishermen, never has the weather been so violent and so extreme. We have had bad weather, but thissituation is unprecedented and is causing huge disruption to the industry.”
On top of keeping fishermen from making a living, the combination of high tides and extreme gales has hammered infrastructures, including vessels, harbours, sea defences, shingle beaches and static fishing gear. There are also real concerns for the stocks as crabs, lobsters and whelks are being found washed up on the beach.Barrie Deas, Chief Executive of the NFFO, said: “The government has a responsibility to maintain the infrastructures under emergency conditions to allow fish to be caught, landed and sold. We need to sit down as a matter of urgency and work out what funding is available and how it can be best channelled to put our industry back on an even keel. These are very exceptional circumstances and I want to explore with Defra and the government agencies what support can be provided.Estimates suggest 2,000 boats and around 4,000 fishermen are being affected by the weather and losses could run into the millions. Looting is now also emerging as a problem, after the Maritime and Coastguard Agency reported items being taken from a vessel wrecked against rocks near Porthcothan in Cornwall.
“After a poor start last year, fishermen are taking another battering and the money has to be found to replace damaged equipment,” continued Mr Delahunty. “It is a desperately worrying time. Everybody has families and mortgages to think about and it could be many months until the industry can recover.”
Even larger trawlers, usually able to go out in bad weather and relied upon to provide continuity of supply to the UK fish market, have only been able to snatch short periods at sea before being forced to return to shore. Now, because of short supply, some whole prices of fish have nearly doubled in just six weeks. There is concern some fishermen will be tempted to take more risks and go out in weatherin which they normally wouldn’t.
Mr Delahunty added: “All of this amounts to a serious setback for the industry at a time when the boats have enough to contend with, adapting to new marine protected areas, quota reductions and the imminent arrival of a discard ban. Plus, with some quota species being seasonal, meaning they’re only allowed to be caught at certain times of the year, it is forcing fishermen to take greater risks, despite already working in one of the most dangerous professions in the UK.”I have also had an article published locally along the same lines.
The fisherman would welcome your support. If you would like to meet me and some of the Selsey fisherman to discuss our situation I would be happy to arrange a meeting.
The National Federation of
Fishermen’s Organisations (NFFO), which represents fishermen across England,
Wales and Northern Ireland, is calling for an urgent meeting with the
government to address storm damage as UK fishermen are being prevented from earning
a living due to the bad weather and poor infrastructure. Fishermen along the
south west coast of England and in Wales have been hit hardest by the unprecedented
stormy weather conditions and could face up to two months of no fishing without
any compensation for loss of earnings.
The government announced yesterday
a £5,000 grant for those business affected by the storms and floods and extra
help from banks via ‘payment holidays’ and loans. According to the NFFO it is
essential that fishermen are factored into this support.
Tony Delahunty, a fisherman from Selsey
and the NFFO’s Chairman-elect, believes it is the most sustained and ferocious
weather he’s seen in his 40 years in the industry: “In all my time as a
fishermen, never has the weather been so violent and so extreme. We have had
bad weather, but this situation is unprecedented and is causing huge disruption
to the industry.”
On top of keeping fishermen from
making a living, the combination of high tides and extreme gales has hammered
infrastructures, including vessels, harbours, sea defences, shingle beaches and
static fishing gear. There are also real concerns for the stocks as crabs,
lobsters and whelks are being found washed up on the beach.
Barrie Deas, Chief Executive of the
NFFO, said: “The government has a responsibility to maintain the infrastructures
under emergency conditions to allow fish to be caught, landed and sold. We need
to sit down as a matter of urgency and work out what funding is available and
how it can be best channelled to put our industry back on an even keel. These
are very exceptional circumstances and I want to explore with Defra and the
government agencies what support can be provided.
Estimates suggest 2,000 boats and
around 4,000 fishermen are being affected by the weather and losses could run
into the millions. Looting is now also emerging as a problem, after the
Maritime and Coastguard Agency reported items being taken from a vessel wrecked
against rocks near Porthcothan in Cornwall.
“After a poor start last year,
fishermen are taking another battering and the money has to be found to replace
damaged equipment,” continued Mr Delahunty. “It is a desperately worrying
time. Everybody has families and mortgages to think about and it could be many
months until the industry can recover.”
Even larger trawlers, usually able
to go out in bad weather and relied upon to provide continuity of supply to the
UK fish market, have only been able to snatch short periods at sea before being
forced to return to shore. Now, because of short supply, some whole prices of
fish have nearly doubled in just six weeks. There is concern some fishermen
will be tempted to take more risks and go out in weather in which they normally
wouldn’t.
Mr Delahunty added: “All of this
amounts to a serious setback for the industry at a time when the boats have
enough to contend with, adapting to new marine protected areas, quota
reductions and the imminent arrival of a discard ban. Plus, with some quota
species being seasonal, meaning they’re only allowed to be caught at certain
times of the year, it is forcing fishermen to take greater risks, despite
already working in one of the most dangerous professions in the UK.”
Across the Irish Sea, fishermen
are also struggling to get out in their boats and the concern is that there
could be a repeat of last winter when persistent gales and unseasonably bad
weather prevented fishermen from going to sea. It was so prolonged that
fishermen were eventually granted hardship funds from the Northern Ireland
Executive.
While it is in the fishermen’s
favour that a precedent has already been set in terms of accessing financial
support, the Northern Irish fishing industry is conscious of not becoming
dependent upon subsidies. However, these are exceptional circumstances arising
from an unprecedented weather pattern justifying urgent government
intervention.
For more information visit https://www.nffo.org.uk/
It is not exactly unknown for the weather in January to disrupt fishing
operations, even for the largest vessels; but the severity and scale of the
relentless series of gales this year is taking a very heavy toll.
Tony Delahunty, Chairman of the NFFO South East Committee, and NFFO
Chairman-elect, commented:
“From
the Thames to the West
Country, the relentless ferocity of the
wind has affected all fishermen from small inshore boats to the larger vessels.
There has been no let up in this weather since the middle of December and
looking forward the forecast for this week is more of the same.
“Fishermen are not earning any money; they
also grave concerns about the damage the gales have caused to fixed
gear. After a poor start last year they are taking another battering and
the money has to be found to replace pots, rope, etc. It is a desperately worrying time.”
“The combination of high tides and
extreme gales has hammered infrastructures, including vessels, harbours, sea
defences and gears. The costs will run into many millions. Furthermore, the
fish markets ashore are struggling because there is no product. Looting is apparently emerging as a
problem.”
“The heavy swell has caused major damage to sea defences, harbours and shingle
beaches. There are also real concerns for the stocks as, crabs, lobsters and
whelks are being found washed up on the beach.
“All of this amounts to a serious
setback for the industry at a time when the boats have enough to contend with,
adapting to new marine protected areas, quota reductions and the imminent arrival
of a discard ban.”
Irish Sea
Across the Irish Sea, fishermen
are also struggling to get out in their boats and the concern is that there
could be a repeat of last winter when persistent gales and unseasonably bad
weather prevented fishermen from going to sea. It was so prolonged that
fishermen were eventually granted hardship funds from the Northern Ireland
Executive.
While it is in the fishermen’s
favour that a precedent has already been set in terms of accessing financial
support, the Northern Irish fishing industry is conscious of not becoming
dependent upon subsidies. However, these are exceptional circumstances arising
from an unprecedented weather pattern justifying urgent government
intervention.
North Sea and Mackerel
“In the North Sea whitefish and the
pelagic fisheries are facing different but equally serious problems. The delay
in resolving the mackerel dispute with Iceland and the Faeroes is having a
knock-on effect on the EU/Norway agreement which should have been settled by
now. All this adds up to a very troubling time for our industry.”
Background
A proposal to cut the haddock quota by 75% was mitigated in December to a reduction of 33% for 2014. But proposals for a further big cut could be in the pipeline for 2015.
Although the broad trends in the Celtic Sea are positive and consistent with those for the whole NE Atlantic (fishing mortality has fallen dramatically since 2000 and the number of stocks reaching MSY is increasing steadily every year), the appearance of huge populations of haddock on the South West grounds, where they had not been prevalent in recent years presents a major management problem.
Recruitment Spikes
Haddock, as a species, is renowned for “random and sporadic recruitment spikes”, the reasons for which are probably environmental and are imperfectly understood. Welcome though the availability of this resource undoubtedly is, it presents a nightmare to manage in the context of the ultra-mixed fisheries in the Celtic Sea. Setting a quota in multi-species, multi-gear and multi-jurisdiction fisheries is always a challenge but the mix of factors in the Celtic Sea makes management uniquely tricky. The impending discard ban adds an extra layer of urgency.
TAC, Stronger Science and a Proactive Approach
The mitigated reduction in Total Allowable Catch for 2014 came with a commitment to develop new technical measures to reduce quota-driven discards – and this was the core subject of this very well attended meeting.
Predicting the size of incoming recruitment is one of the more challenging aspects of stock assessments but the meeting recognised that a proactive approach is needed if widespread discarding and more brutal measures are to be avoided.
Approach
The meeting therefore agreed to:
- Work with CEFAS scientists to strengthen understanding of incoming recruitment and the spatial and temporal distribution of haddock stocks
- Immediately develop a robust industry data-collection scheme on board the vessels to strengthen the information base for future management decisions, including the discard ban (which kicks in for these fisheries in January 2016.)
- Work with scientists on the design and immediate implementation of a fisheries science partnership project to define gear adaptations which would reduce catches of size grades 4 and 5 (smallest but adult) as well as any residual catch below the minimum landing size
- Work with the authorities and fishermen in other member states to ensure the adoption of at least equivalent measures
- Work within the context of the North West Waters RAC, and the new regionalised CFP, to develop a mixed fishery plan for the Celtic Sea that would address the biological realities of “random and sporadic recruitment spikes”
Conclusion
There is no disguising the difficulties in managing this issue but the Newlyn meeting demonstrated perfectly what can be achieved when fishermen, scientists and managers sit down and work together. The hope is that this way of dealing with undoubtedly difficult issues will now replace the top-down dictat from Brussels, which in the past has almost invariably led to blunt and inappropriate measures.
This meeting, so early in 2014, sets the scene for the implementation of discard reduction measures during the year, a more constructive approach for 2015 and preparation for the landings obligation in 2016.
He commanded wide affection and respect over many years as the NFFO’s representative on the Department of Transport Fishing Industry Safety Group. His personal commitment was to ensure that new safety rules made sense where it matters – at the level of the individual fishing vessel.
His fishing career spanned a spell as radio operator on the distant water trawlers, whitefish trawling in his own vessel, Janet M, to potting in partnership with his son, Chris. Until this year he also fished for salmon and trout from a small dory with a T net, off Bridlington. This range of experience allowed him to speak with knowledge and authority across many fisheries, sizes of vessel and fleet segments.
His willingness and ability to speak fluently on behalf of fishermen in his home port of Bridlington, led George to the forefront when the NFFO was established in 1977. He and other leaders in the industry recognised that fishermen need to work together and to talk to Government with a single voice if they wanted to have influence.
He was a member of the Federation’s Executive Committee in an unparalleled run from 1977 to the present; latterly as a co-opted member, much appreciated for his calm wisdom and experience.
George was central to the establishment of the Federation’s successful commercial division, NFFO Services Limited, and ran the company in its early years, providing much needed stability for the Federation’s finances and ultimately, laying the foundations for our Training Trust, which provides grants to young fishermen for training and safety equipment.
The commercial success of NFFO Services arose directly from the necessary dialogue between fishermen and other seabed users such as offshore oil and gas and renewables. George earned the respect of the developers that he dealt with through his transparent integrity and plain speaking.
Given his personal and professional qualities, it was natural that George would be elected first as Chairman and then President of the NFFO. He was highly regarded by ministers and officials as someone who could deliver the industry’s messages with force and clarity. During this period he sat as one of the Federation’s representatives on the Seafish board.
George spoke from what he knew. And what he knew best was “our patch” – those fisheries prosecuted from the port of Bridlington and the Yorkshire coast. The port adapted radically to the decline of the whitefish industry in the 1990s by transforming itself and rising phoenix-like to become the largest shellfish port in the country. George was a part of that transformation and set up a successful cooperative marketing venture to maximise the return to the port’s fishermen.
His service to the industry led him to be elected as both Chairman of the Bridlington Harbour Commissioners and the North Eastern Sea Fisheries Committee. George was Chairman of the Association of Sea Fisheries Committees prior to their conversion into IFCAs.
In his fishing, commercial and representative work, George was ably supported by his wife Margaret. This was a true partnership. His warmth and willingness to offer advice and support earned him many friends throughout and beyond the fishing industry.
Our thoughts are with Margaret and the rest of his family at this time of sad loss.
Its publication may quell some of the more feverish speculation that has surrounded the issue of quota distribution and quota management. There is no sign that either Manchester United or Terry Wogan owns a single FQA (Fixed Quota Allocation).
Quota Register
At a brief glance, the register seems to confirm:
- The centrality of producer organisations as collectives of fishermen managing quota on behalf of their members
- That most quota is attached to specific named and active fishing vessels
- That individual quota holdings (industry share) remains quite diffuse compared to ownership patterns in many other industries
- A significant part of the UK catch is of non-TAC species; these fishing opportunities are therefore not reflected in the register
- The biggest concentrations of quota holdings tend to be in the high-volume offshore and external waters fisheries, where larger vessels are necessary to operate safely
- Holdings to some degree reflect past decommissioning policy and where fishermen have bought (and sold) quota, as well as those generated by historical rights
- “Dummy licences” are mainly used to hold quota whilst a vessel is renewed or as part of a Community Quota
Quota Concentrations
The distribution/concentration of FQAs in the register also reflects the considerable reduction in the size of the over-10 metre fleet over the last decade. Confronted with falling quotas and harsh economic conditions, consolidated and grouped FQAs have been a prerequisite for the fleet to fish legally and to minimise discards.
Quota PolicyDoubtless the publication of the FQA register will now fuel a period of discussion about the implications of its content for day-to-day quota management and government policy towards quota in the UK.
The debate over quota shortage in the under-10metre fisheries, which began in crude over-generalised assertions and heated controversy, has already matured into something a lot more constructive. By identifying specific regional and fleet quota pinch-points for the under-10s and through a focus on the best means of addressing these, it has been possible to demonstrate (for example through the Ramsgate Quota project) what can be achieved. It is clear that quota pinch points vary over time and that not all under-10s are in the same boat, so to speak. Cooperation between producer organisations and groups of under-10s who are under quota pressure can significantly increase the quota available through swaps, transfers, gifts and international transfers.
Our hope is that the publication of the quota register will help this debate move beyond the superficial, to ways in which, through industry cooperation, producer organisations and those parts of the under-10m fleet which do catch significant amounts of quota species, can address specific quota shortages on a real-time basis. The Federation is in discussion with a second under-10m group, this time in the North West, about how local boats could benefit from this kind of arrangement.
Next Steps
The quota register will be out of date as soon as it is published as quota is moved around all the time in line with supply and demand. It will be important that this changing reality is reflected in some way within future versions of the register. The obvious way to achieve this would be to undertake real time reconciliation when FQA transfers take place. This will not of course reflect temporary lease, swap, or gift transfers.
Decentralised quota management through producer organisations has been one of the few unambiguous success stories to emerge over the last 20 years and is increasingly copied in other member states. PO quota managers are much more likely to be in touch with the quota needs in the ports than distant administrators. It is the absence of this kind of responsive, effective, quota management for the 14% of the under-10m fleet which catch around 70% of the under 10m quota allocations that has put them at a real disadvantage and which the Federation hopes to rectify.
Looking ahead, quota flexibility and a responsive system are going to be absolutely central if the implementation of the landings obligation is not going to end in one big mess.
The National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations has said despite generally improving fish stocks in European waters quota decisions by the Council of Ministers do not take sufficient account of mixed fisheries.
The decisions were made at the annual December Council meeting in Brussels, where representatives of the UK fishing industry reflecting the diversity of UK fisheries worked closely with the fisheries minister throughout negotiations.
Quota cuts for main whitefish fisheries in the Celtic sea including cod, whiting and haddock have been significant. However the efforts of UK delegation working with the French and Irish managed to reduce the cut of haddock quota from 75% to 33%. The decrease in Haddock nevertheless will hurt badly especially as this, which is not a species at risk, and the current abundance reflects a previous spike in numbers.
The National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations chief executive, Barrie Deas, said: “The Council decisions reflect that most stocks are rebuilding steadily. But when it comes to mixed fisheries, the outcomes reflect the very blunt approach to fisheries governance which doesn’t take into account that most of our fisheries are multi-gear, catching a range of species. This can lead to an increase in discards by setting quotas out of alignment with what is caught in the nets.
“The CFP must move beyond these top-down decisions as rapidly as possible. We believe that member states working with the fishing industry at regional seas level would deliver much more rational and effective decisions based on a proper appreciation of the dynamics of these mixed fisheries.
“Our aim for the UK industry is to progress our work towards high yield, stable, fisheries while making sure to take into account the complexities of mixed fisheries. For many years now fishermen have worked closely with scientists to inform where, when and what they fish.”
One of the country’s most sustainable fish, hake saw an increase of almost 50% in its total allowable catch, while in several areas monkfish and plaice also enjoyed significant increases. A decision on quotas of North Sea cod is yet to be decided and negotiations will start in January, while the ongoing debate on mackerel stocks continues.
For more information about the NFFO visit: www.nffo.org.uk
Cod
Despite the strong recovery of the cod stock in the North Sea, cod will again be forced centre stage as the UK and likeminded member states have to fight off effort reductions stipulated by the EU cod management plan. Like a runaway train, the ill-fated plan is careering its way to the European Court as part of a dispute over whether the Council or the European Parliament has jurisdiction over management plans. Even the Commission tacitly admits that it is nonsense to follow a discredited plan that is overdue for amendment but that is what it will do. It will again be down to the Council to limit the damage.
Norway
In the meantime, the Council would normally just be expected to rubber stamp the agreement for a bilateral fisheries agreement with Norway which sets TACs for jointly managed stocks like cod, haddock, whiting, saithe, plaice and herring in the North Sea. However, the EU Norway negotiations have become another victim in the mackerel dispute with Iceland and Faeroes, as Norway has used the opportunity to revisit the issue of its own share. The result is that instead of Council endorsing the deal, or tying up a few loose ends, the whole EU Norway agreement is left up in the air with no date so far for resumed negotiations.
Fishing and TACs
Despite the dramatic reduction in fishing mortality since the year 2000 recorded by ICES, across all the main fisheries in the North East Atlantic, and to which many stocks are responding positively, the Commission’s proposals are for a fair number of reductions which if fully implemented would hurt badly. There is always a question mark over the extent that the Commission ramp up the reductions in their proposal in the expectation that ministers will argue some down. But ministers bear a heavy responsibility to introduce mixed fisheries and discard reduction dimensions to the final decisions, as the science is for the most part provided on a single stock basis.The eye-watering 75% reduction proposed for Area VII haddock reflects a bumper haddock recruitment in 2009 rather than a stock in crisis. In the context of a mixed fishery, it is difficult to see how following this proposal this could lead to anything other than massive discarding. TAC proposals are also being driven down by the drive to reach MSY by 2015; by “precautionary” 20% cuts; and by use-it-or-lose it cuts.
Only a fantasist would believe that quotas should always go up but there is no doubt that there is a significant element of self-inflicted pain in this year’s proposals that will do little for stock recovery, or progress towards discard reduction but will certainly make life more difficult for the industry. It will be ministers’ job to bring a degree of common sense and a degree of democratic control to the process. If ever there was a lesson that cutting TACs for cosmetic reasons will not deliver recovery, it can be seen in the Irish Sea and the West of Scotland where the TAC for cod has been cut year after year to the bone but with absolutely no sign that it has served any purpose.
Single Stock advice in Mixed Fisheries
TAC decisions are always a trade-off between what it is safe to harvest next year without jeopardising the future. But given that most ICES advice is provided on a single-stock basis, under the current arrangements ministers have a particular responsibility to balance mixed fishery issues and discard reduction with continued progress towards high yield fisheries. It is important for commentators to remember this when simplistically comparing minister’s decisions with the Commission’s proposals or ICES advice.
NFFO
An NFFO team, reflecting the different regions and fleets in our diverse membership, will as usual, attend the Council. This involves a pre-council briefing with the Minister George Eustice, and his officials, in which the industry’s priorities and the UK’s priorities are aligned as far as possible. Good communications right through the Council process are vitally important to deal with issues as they arise. Finally, in the early hours of Wednesday morning, a deal will be struck which will shape the fortunes of the industry for another year.
The National Federation of Fisherman’s Organisations (NFFO), which represents fishermen’s groups, individual fishermen and
producer organisations in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, has called for
more cooperation with the industry at the planning stages of offshore wind farm
developments to avoid destruction of prime fishing grounds.
Currently offshore wind
provides around three percent of the UK’s electricity demand, but this is
likely to increase to one fifth to ensure the UK can meet its legally binding
EU renewable energy target by the year 2020. Establishment of wind farms have
an investment opportunity of £60 billion and offshore wind could support up to
30,000 jobs from industries involved in installation and development of wind
farms, but also the manufacture and design of vessels and turbines.
However, the fishing
industry has expressed concerns that the shift from onshore to offshore could
have serious consequences for the fishing industry. Its call for better
planning and closer dialogue follows an early round of developments where poor
preparation and decisions based on inadequate information placed a wind-farm
development on one of the best lobster grounds in the country. In another case,
inadequate information on fishing led the planners to ignore the presence of a
significant amount of fishing by the under-15 metre fleet.
To avoid repeating similar
debacles, the NFFO has worked closely with Crown Estates on an innovative
seabed mapping project, funded by the Crown Estate and the Department for
Energy and Climate Change, which is designed to use fishermen’s own electronic
data to identify the most important fishing grounds.
The project has collated a large body of
plotter data from a range of fishing vessel skippers and combined this
information with the Crown’s powerful mapping software to map the main areas of
fishing activity with astonishing accuracy.
The data collected should prove
invaluable in informing future rounds of offshore renewable planning to avoid
the most important fishing areas, as well as encouraging direct dialogue
between individual offshore developers about how to minimise the displacement
of fishing activities. The findings also have direct scope to help inform of a
network of marine protected areas in UK waters, and marine spatial
planning generally.
Barrie Deas, Chief Executive
of the NFFO commented: “The Government’s recent decision to shift its subsidy
to offshore wind-farms underlines the need to strengthen protection for our
most important fishing grounds. The kind of collaborative approach we have
developed with the Crown Estate offers the best way of limiting potential
damage. But it requires a commitment from the Government and individual
developers as well as members of the fishing industry to engage in a meaningful
dialogue on the data this mapping project has produced.”
For more information on the
NFFO, visit www.nffo.org.uk
“We would normally advise that where there
is a long term management plan it should be followed”, said Niels Wichmann,
chairman of the NSRAC.
“However, in the case of North Sea cod,
there are exceptional circumstances, not least that the impasse between the
Council and the European Parliament, that has blocked a review and revision of
the Cod Plan”, he said. This would be a departure from the terms of the long
term management plan but we think, having looked carefully at the science and
the fishery that in these circumstances it is justified.
We have looked very carefully at ICES
advice and have come to the conclusion that a cautious increase in the TAC of
around 10% would help to reduce discards in 2014 whilst maintaining the steady
rebuilding of the spawning stock biomass. We are very encouraged that the
science has recorded the seventh successive annual increase in the biomass.”
The RAC has also suggested that again there
should be no reduction in permitted days-at-sea in 2014.
“If we set aside the complex constitutional
issues, there is widespread agreement that nothing would be achieved by a
further cut and indeed a reduction in effort could undermine the varied
conservation initiatives put in place through partnerships between the member
states and the fishing industry.”
“This is a view that has been reached after
long discussions and close scrutiny of the scientific advice. It is unanimously
supported by all groups within the RAC.”
Seafish is more than capable of defending itself and did so.
However,
in his blog George Monbiot suggested that because cod stocks in the North Sea
were still below levels seen in the 1970s, the Marine Conservation Society were
right to warn consumers not to eat North Sea cod and Seafish was wrong to
criticise them for doing so.
The
NFFO used Twitter to suggest that Mr Monbiot’s comments in respect of North Sea
cod were “scientifically illiterate.” The 1970s saw what scientists
call the “gadoid outburst”, when, for reasons, possibly
environmental, that are still poorly understood, most of the cod-type species
saw a massive explosion in recruitment out of line with anything seen over the
rest of the historical record. The point that we were making was that it was
nonsense (if not deliberately misleading) to use this apparently freakish
population explosion as the benchmark for safe levels of exploitation of North
Sea cod now.
The
Tweet reached its destination because Mr Monbiot answered in person in angry
terms referring to “our bullshit campaign.” Leaving aside that there
is no “campaign”, the retort triggered a kind of guerrilla hit and
run exchange on Twitter across the course of the afternoon in which Greenpeace
and others joined in, with greater or lesser relevance.
The
Federation, in hopefully calm and reasoned tones, pointed repeatedly to the
ICES science which shows that the biomass for North Sea cod has increased for
seven successive years, that there has been a dramatic reduction in fishing mortality
(fishing pressure) and that in the catch forecasts provided by the scientists there
are options that would allow the 2014 quota to be set at +20% and still achieve
a +34% increase in biomass, whilst simultaneously cutting discards of mature,
marketable fish. After the Federation had sent to George Monbiot a copy of a scientific
paper of a paper indicating that even under the current conditions of low
recruitment, North Sea cod will achieve (F) maximum sustainable yield by 2015,
there was radio silence.
The
lessons from this bad tempered exchange are important. Firstly it turns out
that Mr Monbiot was not necessarily “scientifically illiterate”, it’s
just that he didn’t bother to look at the science before writing his blog. By
asking, in the final tweets of the exchange for the link
to ICES advice, he was confessing that he had gone for the jugular without
paying the slightest attention to the evidence and the authoritative work of
stock assessment scientists.
Leaving
aside whether consumers pay any attention whatsoever to the kind of “advice”
provided by the Marine Conservation Society, it has become clear over the last
few years that the fishing industry needs
fisheries scientists. Despite the tiffs we have had in the past and the
fact that counting the number of fish in the sea is an inherently complex task,
the fishing industry needs fisheries science for its rational, measured and
evidence-based approach. To abandon science is to leave ourselves at the mercy
of the sensationalist and alarmist media and to reduce ourselves to the same
type of mudslinging.
It is
difficult to know what effect this kind of exchange on social media has on
public perceptions about fishing and fish stocks. However, it can be said that
it at least allowed the Federation to make the point to our growing number of
followers that anyone familiar with ICES
science would find it difficult to credibly argue that our fisheries are on a
downward trend. The contrary is true. Fish stocks are responding to the
huge reduction in fishing pressure beginning around the year 2000 and right
across all of the main species groups in the North East Atlantic. If only that
message sinks in to the environmental journalists, our efforts will not have
been wasted.
This is the total membership of the Association, which is probably the smallest in the NFFO. All four members of the local association are members of the Federation. It is a seasonal fishery with the boats being less than 8 metres. The Clovelly Association also has links to North Devon Fishermen’s Association, of which John Balls, from Clovelly is the current chairman.
The Government has announced details of the 27 marine conservation zones (MCZs) which will be designated in a first round. Further areas will be designated in two further rounds in 2015/16 and 2016/17.
This phased approach vindicates the work of MPAC and the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations (NFFO) in pressing the government to resist calls to designate all 127 suggested MCZs in one “big bang”. MPAC and the Federation warned it would be vital to listen carefully to the local fishing industry potentially affected by recommended marine conservation zones and to ensure adequate evidence had been gathered about the conservation features within them. Without adequate evidence about conservation features and fishing activity there was a real danger MCZs could turn into a tick-box exercise with zero conservation advantage but maximum disruption to fishing operations, livelihoods and communities.
The Government has elected to continue building a network of marine protected areas through a careful, phased approach by going ahead with 27 designations out of the original 31 proposed. This means four sites will not be included in this round. Of those four, two will not be designated at all: they would either generate too much economic disruption or the additional evidence suggests habitat features were not of the sort that would have justified designation.
The other two sites require further scrutiny and so a final decision on designation has been deferred. That means they may still be designated under further rounds but more evidence will be gathered in the meantime to inform those decisions. The Government received 40,000 responses to its consultation exercise, many of them from fishermen and fishing organisations worried about their livelihoods. From the beginning the Government made it plain it would balance scientific information on vulnerable habitats and features with data on the socio-economic consequences of applying management measures within a designated MCZ.
MPAC and the NFFO has worked hard to keep the Government on this track and to resist pressures from a coalition of media oriented NGOs, and the odd celebrity chef, who appeared more concerned with headlines than putting the MCZs in the right place or fishermen’s livelihoods.
Management Measures within MCZs
The real impact of MCZs will be felt only as management measures are applied within the designated areas. One small but important aspect of Defra’s announcement this week was that the Government will encourage a partnership approach to the protection of vulnerable features within MCZs rather than reaching for new layers of legislation. The fishing industry already successfully operates within a number of voluntary agreements and so it is natural the Government should suggest that this means of achieving its conservation objectives should take a prominent place in its strategy. MPAC has recently suggested a protocol be developed for voluntary partnerships within MCZs. These would contain a menu that would guide groups in the development of their own partnership agreements.
If it had crossed Mr Eustice’s mind that his predecessor, Richard Benyon, having completed CFP reform, may have got all the tricky fisheries issues out of the way, and that he could just slip into cruise control as the new minister, he has probably been put straight on that notion by now
Here are some of the issues demanding the attention of the new minister:
Autumn Negotiations
Given the date of his appointment, Mr Eustice will have little option but to focus immediately on the outcomes of the TACs and Quotas Regulation in December. The livelihoods of thousands of fishermen are directly linked to these decisions and even if the process has the appearance of a late night circus, it is nonetheless vitally important. TAC decisions are always a trade off between what it is safe to harvest now and avoiding jeopardising the future. But given that most ICES advice is provided on a single-stock basis, ministers have a particular responsibility to balance mixed fishery issues and discard reduction with continued progress towards high yield fisheries.
Even before the December Council begins, the minster will be involved (directly or indirectly) in the negotiations to resolve the mackerel dispute with Iceland and also the outcome of the EU Norway negotiations, vital to many different UK fisheries.
He will also have to prepare for the annual fisheries debate in Parliament, which provides MPs with an opportunity to raise a range of fisheries issues.
CFP Reform
Richard Benyon was in charge of the UK’s part in negotiating the reform of the CFP but in fact it is the implementation of the measures agreed that presents the real challenge and it looks very likely that this will fall at least partially on George Eustice’s watch. Few within the industry can have much doubt that the impending landings obligation (aka discard ban) has the potential to cause mayhem unless handled very carefully.
Equally, the other main pillar of the CFP reform, regionalisation, will generate political issues that will find their way to the new minister’s desk. How cooperation between member states at regional-seas level and close cooperation with the RACs in the formulation of fisheries policy will work in practice are open questions at present. And the clock is ticking on the deadlines set by the European institutions.
Marine Protected Areas
Richard Benyon took some flak from some of the more vocal NGOs for insisting on a rational, evidence-based approach to establishing a network of marine protected areas in UK waters. He was right of course, and it is important that his successor also resists the siren call to establish marine conservation zones as a tick-box exercise, without knowing with any degree of precision what it is they are protecting, or what the consequences of displacing fishing activity would be.
Fisheries Science Partnerships
Relations between fishermen and fisheries scientists have come a long way and the Fisheries Science Partnership (FSP) established in 2003 by Defra, Cefas and the NFFO has played a central part in that transformation, setting a model widely copied in Europe. In this era of budget cuts it is vitally important sight is not lost of the role fisheries science partnership projects can play in bringing scientific perspectives and the fishing industry’s experience closer together. Ultimately, spending decisions within the department lie with the relevant minister and the priorities they establish. It would be a great mistake to underestimate the achievements of the FSP and its potential to fill gaps in the science in the future.
Under-10metre Fisheries
For a while, exaggeration, over-generalisation and emotional rhetoric dominated the debate on the future of the small-scale inshore fisheries. Thankfully, the focus has now stabilised and moved to identifying and dealing with the actual quota pinch points for the under-10m fleet. These tend to be regionally specific and limited to a few stocks. This has allowed producer organisations to help out without fearing unduly for their members’ own allocations. Access to a great deal of quota can be obtained through judicious quota management, swaps, gifts and transfers and the POs have become very skilled in this arena. Providing access to this type of professional quota management is key to getting quota where and when it is needed in the under-10m fleet.
Richard Benyon was very complimentary about the NFFO’s role in encouraging this type of industry cooperation and we certainly hope his successor will continue to support the extension and continuation of this important initiative.
The issues surrounding the
availability of quota for smaller boat fishermen have repeatedly hit the
headlines over recent months, with a number of organisations and environmental
groups challenging the volumes available for small boats.
Of the project, Eddie
Temple, who has been a fisherman for more than 25 years, said: “Quota has
always been a complicated issue which puts restrictions on when, where and what
we fishermen can fish. Through this pilot project in Ramsgate we are able to be
more in control of our businesses so we can decide when to go out and what we
want to catch. This new flexibility has allowed us to operate more safely as we’re
not forced out in bad weather conditions, and give us more independence in how
we run our operations.”
The arrangement has been
brokered by the NFFO, which represents
fishermen’s groups, individual fishermen and producer organisations in
England, Wales and Northern Ireland and has been working to find fairer deals
for small boat fishermen across the country.